United States General Accounting Office 

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters


October 2001 VOTERS WITH 


DISABILITIES


Access to Polling 

Places and Alternative 

Voting Methods 

A fully accessible version of this report is available at: 

http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/d02107.txt 

GAO-02-107


a

Contents


Letter


Results in Brief 


Background 


State Provisions and County Practices for Assuring Voting 


Accessibility Vary Widely 

Most Polling Places Have Features That May Impede Access, but 

Most Also Provide Accommodations That May Facilitate 

Voting 

A Variety of Challenges Face States and Counties as They Work 

Toward Improving Access to Voting 

1 

5 

10 

16 

22 

33 

Appendixes 

Appendix I:

Appendix II:

Appendix III:

Appendix IV:

Appendix V:

Appendix VI:

Appendix VII:

Scope and Methods

Analysis of State Laws and Written Policies 

Data Collection From States, Counties, and Selected National 

Organizations 

Selection of Polling Places 

Description of Site Visits and the Data Collection Instrument 

Analysis of Election Day Data 

Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection Instrument

People and Counties Contacted During Our Review

State Provisions Concerning Voting Accessibility

Selected Potential Impediments by Location Area

Issues and Challenges Related to Voting Accommodations 

and Alternatives

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements

40 

40 

41 

43 

44 

47 

50 

64 

74 

86 

87 

90 

Tables Table 1: State Provisions Concerning Accessibility of Polling 

Places 17 

Table 2: State Practices in Assuring and Improving Polling Place 

Accessibility 19 

Table 3: State Provisions for Alternative Voting Methods and 

Accommodations 21 

Page i GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Contents 

Table 4: Prevalence of Potential Impediments by Type of 

Building 29 

Table 5: Potential Challenges Posed by Various Voting Methods 31 

Table 6: Comparison of Election Day and Non-Election Day Data: 

Percentage of Polling Places With Potential Impediments 

in Two Areas 48 

Table 7: Representatives of Election Offices in 50 States and the 

District of Columbia 64 

Table 8: Alphabetical Listing of 100 Randomly Selected Counties 67 

Table 9: State Provisions Concerning Polling Place Accessibility, 

Accommodation of Voting Booth Areas and Equipment, 

and Aids for Visually Impaired Voters 74 

Table 10: State Provisions Concerning Alternative Voting Methods or 

Accommodations On or Before Election Day 80 

Figures Figure 1: Prevalence of Potential Impediments at Polling Places 

and Availability of Curbside Voting 8 

Figure 2: Key Features at Polling Places 24 

Figure 3: Prevalence of Potential Impediments at Polling Places 

and Availability of Curbside Voting 26 

Figure 4: Percentage of Polling Places With Potential Impediments 

That Offer Curbside Voting 27 

Figure 5: Percentage of All Polling Places by Number of Potential 

Impediments 28 

Figure 6: Voting Methods Used at Polling Places 31 

Abbreviations

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990


ANSI American National Standards Institute


DCI data collection instrument


DOD Department of Defense


DOJ Department of Justice


FEC Federal Election Commission


NACO National Association of Counties


NACRC National Association of County Recorders and Clerks


NASED National Association of State Election Directors


NASS National Association of Secretaries of State


VAEHA Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act


VRA Voting Rights Act of 1965


Page ii GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Page 1 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities

A

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

October 15, 2001 

The Honorable Tom Harkin 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Health 

and Human Services, and Education 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable John McCain 

Ranking Minority Member, Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Mitch McConnell 

Ranking Minority Member, Committee on 

Rules and Administration 

United States Senate 

Voting is the foundation of our American democratic system, and federal 

law generally requires access to voting on Election Day for people with 

disabilities. Under the law, state political subdivisions responsible for 

conducting elections must assure that polling places used in federal 

elections are accessible, as determined by the state.1 Exceptions are 

allowed if the state determines that all potential polling places have been 

surveyed and no accessible place is available, and the political subdivision 

cannot make one temporarily accessible.

2 In these cases, voters with 

disabilities who are assigned to inaccessible polling places must be, upon 

advance request, either reassigned to an accessible polling place or 

provided another means for voting on Election Day.

3 These requirements 

present a challenge to state and local election officials because achieving 

accessibility—which is affected by the type of impairment and various 

barriers posed by polling place facilities and voting methods—is part of a 

larger set of challenges they face in administering elections on a periodic 

basis. 

1

See the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, 42 U.S.C. section 1973ee 

et seq. 

2

Exceptions are also allowed in the case of an emergency, as determined by the chief 

election officer of the state. See 42 U.S.C. section1973ee-1(b)(1). 

3

42 U.S.C. section 1973ee-1(b)(2)(B). 

Page 1 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Because nationwide information on the accessibility of voting for people 

with disabilities is dated and has significant limitations, you asked us to 

study voting access for people with disabilities, including access to polling 

places and alternative voting methods. This study is part of a broader body 

of GAO work about election procedures and election reform issues that we 

are doing at the request of various members of the Congress. This report 

(1) examines state and local provisions and practices for assuring voting 

accessibility, both at polling places and with respect to alternative voting 

methods and accommodations;4

 (2) estimates the proportion of polling 

places with features that might facilitate or impede access, including 

features of polling booths and voting accommodations; and (3) identifies 

efforts and challenges to improving voting accessibility.

5 

4

In this report, we define alternative voting method to be any voting method other than 

traditional in-person voting at a polling place on Election Day. Alternative voting methods 

include early voting and absentee voting, which may be available to all voters. We use the 

term accommodations to refer to measures mainly intended to facilitate voting for people 

with disabilities. Accommodations provided at the polling place include curbside voting 

(whereby a ballot is brought outside the polling place to a voter who is unable to enter the 

polling place), poll worker assistance, Braille or large-type ballots or instructions, and other 

visual or audio aids. Other accommodations made available outside the traditional polling 

place include reassignment to accessible polling places and permanent absentee voting. 

5

This report focuses on access to voting for people with physical disabilities, but does not 

specifically address access for voters with hearing impairments. It also does not address 

access to voter registration. 

Page 2 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
To examine provisions for assuring voting accessibility, we reviewed state 

statutes and regulations pertaining to voting accessibility—both at polling 

places and with respect to alternative voting methods—for all 50 states and 

the District of Columbia. We also reviewed written policies and other 

guidelines that we identified or were provided by chief election officials for 

all states, the District of Columbia, and a statistical sample of 100 counties, 

selected to be representative of all counties in the contiguous United States 

with the exception of those in Oregon.6 (The county selection process is 

described later in this section.) In addition, we interviewed election 

officials in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and in the 100 counties in 

our sample to identify practices for assuring voting accessibility.

7

 However, 

we did not verify the implementation of state and county provisions or 

practices. 

6

We drew our sample of 100 counties using the Census Bureau’s Population Estimates for 

Counties by Age and Sex: Annual Time Series (for 1998), which included a total of 3,074 

counties or statistically similar subdivisions. We did not include counties outside the 

contiguous United States for reasons of cost and efficiency, or counties in Oregon because, 

since 1998, elections in this state have been conducted almost exclusively by mail. The 100 

counties in our sample are located in 33 states. 

7

In most states, responsibility for conducting elections is entrusted to county election 

officials. For the 100 counties, we generally contacted county election officials. However, 

in four counties we contacted election officials at a subcounty level, such as towns and 

cities, where the responsibility for elections resided, and then combined their responses to 

create county-level responses. 

Page 3 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
To estimate the proportion of polling places in the contiguous United States 

with features that might facilitate or impede access for people with 

mobility, dexterity, and visual impairments, we visited randomly selected 

polling places across the country on Election Day (Nov. 7, 2000). We used a 

two-stage sampling method that created a nationally representative sample 

of polling places in the contiguous United States.8 The first stage involved 

randomly selecting 100 counties. We based the probability of each county’s 

selection on the size of its voting age population so that heavily populated 

counties, which tend to have more polling places than less-populated 

counties, would have a greater chance of being included in the sample. The 

second stage involved randomly selecting eight polling places in each 

county. We then visited no less than 3 and up to 8 polling places per county, 

for a total of 496 polling places on Election Day.

9 At each polling place, 

using a composite of various federal and nonfederal accessibility 

guidelines,10 we took measurements and made observations of features of 

the facility and voting methods that could potentially impede access—such 

as no accessible parking, steep ramps, high door thresholds, and voting 

booths that did not accommodate voters in wheelchairs. We also 

interviewed poll workers in charge of the polling place to identify 

accommodations offered at the polling place—such as curbside voting 

outside the polling place, and poll worker assistance and other voter aids 

inside the voting room. We documented our observations and interviews 

with poll workers in a data collection instrument we developed. However, 

because the extent to which any given feature may affect access is 

dependent upon numerous factors—including the type or severity of an 

individual’s disability—we were not able to determine whether any 

8

Sampling errors for these data generally range from 3 to 10 percentage points, unless 

otherwise noted in this report. 

9

The 496 polling places we visited on Election Day were located in 85 of the 100 counties. 

We visited an additional 89 polling places in 15 counties before or after Election Day 

because we were unable to gain access to polling places in these counties on Election Day. 

Because we were unable to visit these polling places on Election Day, we were only able to 

collect partial data at these sites. See app. I for an analysis of these data. 

10Because a single set of access standards for polling places does not exist, we incorporated 

into our data collection instrument criteria from the following federal and nonfederal 

accessibility guidelines: the 1991 Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines 

for Buildings and Facilities; the ADA Guide for Small Towns; the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) accessibility guidelines; and accessibility documents published 

by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and the National Organization on Disability, and 

the National Task Force on Accessible Elections. See app. I for more information on the 

development of the data collection instrument. 

Page 4 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
observed feature prevented access. Accordingly, we do not categorize 

polling places as “accessible” or “inaccessible.” Moreover, we were not able 

to determine whether curbside voting or other accommodations offered at 

polling places actually facilitated voting. Finally, we did not assess whether 

our observations on Election Day were consistent with state and county 

provisions or practices. 

To identify efforts and challenges to improving voting access, we 

interviewed election officials in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 

the 100 counties in our sample to obtain their views on the challenges 

associated with improving the accessibility of polling places and voting 

equipment.

11 We also interviewed selected election officials and 

representatives of disability organizations to obtain their views on the costs 

of accessible voting equipment and the extent to which alternative voting 

methods and accommodations improve access for voters with disabilities. 

See appendix I for more information on our methods; appendix II for a 

copy of our data collection instrument; and appendix III for a list of the 

people, counties, states, and organizations we contacted. 

We performed our work from May 2000 to July 2001 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief	 All states12 have provisions (in the form of statutes, regulations, or policies) 

that specifically address voting by people with disabilities. However, 

consistent with the broad discretion afforded states, these provisions vary 

greatly. For example, our review of state provisions shows that while 42 

states have established standards by which to judge the accessibility of 

polling places, the number and specificity of these standards vary from 

state to state, and the remaining 9 states have not established specific 

accessibility standards. State laws and policies also vary on how counties 

are to assure accessibility of polling places. For example, while some 

states require counties to inspect polling places for accessibility, many do 

not. Nevertheless, our survey of counties confirms that most counties 

11Sampling errors for county survey data generally range from 4 to 25 percentage points. We 

generally present the lower bound of the estimate when the sampling error is large. 

12For analytical purposes we treated the District of Columbia as a state, resulting in a total of 

51 states. 

Page 5 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
inspect all polling places for accessibility. Our county survey also shows 

that county practices for assuring accessibility vary. For example, while 

some counties cite accessibility as a specific criterion used in selecting 

polling places, others do not. 

All states provide for one or more alternative voting methods or 

accommodations that may facilitate voting by people with disabilities 

whose assigned polling places are inaccessible. For example, all states 

have provisions allowing voters with disabilities to vote absentee without 

requiring notary or medical certification requirements, although the 

deadlines and methods (for example, by mail or in person) for absentee 

voting vary among states. In addition, many states, but not all, have laws or 

policies that provide for other accommodations and alternatives for voting 

on or before Election Day—such as reassignment to a polling place that is 

accessible, curbside voting, or early voting. 

Page 6 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
On Election Day 2000, we made onsite observations and collected data at 

polling places on features that may facilitate or impede access for those 

individuals with disabilities who prefer to vote at the polls in the same 

manner as the general public. (Polling places are generally located in 

schools, libraries, churches, and town halls, as well as other facilities.) 

Although the extent to which any given feature may prevent or facilitate 

access is unknown, we estimate that, from the parking area to the voting 

room, 16 percent of all polling places in the contiguous United States13 have 

no potential impediments, 56 percent have one or more potential 

impediments but offer curbside voting, and 28 percent have one or more 

potential impediments and do not offer curbside voting.

14 (See fig. 1.) 

These potential impediments would primarily affect individuals with 

mobility impairments. Such potential impediments occur most often on the 

route from the parking area to the building or at the entrance to the polling 

place, with more than half of all polling places having impediments in these 

areas. Inside the voting room, the types and arrangement of voting 

equipment used may also pose challenges for people with mobility, vision, 

or dexterity impairments. To facilitate voting inside the voting room, 

polling places generally provide accommodations, such as voter assistance, 

magnifying devices, and voting instructions or sample ballots in large print. 

However, none of the polling places that we visited had special ballots or 

voting equipment adapted for blind voters.

15 

13Although our results are representative of all polling places in the United States, they may 

not be representative of all polling places in any individual state. 

14Although curbside voting is not available at a number of polling places with potential 

impediments, as noted earlier all states have provisions for absentee voting, and many states 

provide for other alternative voting methods or accommodations, which may facilitate 

voting by people with disabilities on or before Election Day. 

15Although we did not observe such aids on Election Day, some county officials told us that, 

upon request, they try to provide special aids so that blind individuals can vote 

independently. We may not have observed these aids on Election Day because they may not 

have been requested in advance by voters in the polling places that we visited or the local 

poll workers we interviewed may not have been aware of these aids. 

Page 7 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Figure 1: Prevalence of Potential Impediments at Polling Places and Availability of 

Curbside Voting 

16% 

56% 

28% 

Percentage of polling places with no 

potential impediments 

Percentage of polling places with 

one or more potential impediments 

that offer curbside voting 

Percentage of polling places with one 

or more potential impediments that do not 

offer curbside voting 

Note: These potential impediments are located along the route from the parking area to the voting 

room. 

Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on Nov. 7, 2000. 

A number of efforts have been made by states and localities to improve 

voting accessibility for people with disabilities, such as modifying polling 

places, acquiring new voting equipment, and expanding voting options. 

Nevertheless, state and county election officials we surveyed cited a 

variety of challenges to improving access. Election officials cited the 

limited availability of accessible facilities as one major challenge. Facilities 

used as polling places, such as schools and churches, are generally owned 

or controlled by public or private entities not responsible for running 

elections, complicating attempts to make polling places more accessible. 

In addition, some election officials indicated that funding constraints at the 

local level pose another challenge, hindering the acquisition of voting 

equipment that is more accessible. Finally, expanding the availability of 

alternative voting methods or accommodations can provide voters with 

additional options but implementing these changes can present election 

officials with legal, administrative, and operational challenges. Moreover, 

some disability advocates believe that although alternative voting methods 

and accommodations, such as curbside voting, expand options for voters 

with disabilities, they do not provide the same voting opportunities 

afforded the general public (that is, the opportunity to vote independently 

Page 8 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
and privately at a polling place) and should not be viewed as permanent 

solutions for inaccessible polling places. 

Although improving access for voters with disabilities presents challenges 

for state and local election officials, this issue warrants attention and 

consideration, particularly in light of recent nationwide discussions over 

election reform. While our report does not take a position on what the 

appropriate access policy should be, as the Congress and other 

policymakers at all levels of government consider measures aimed at 

improving the accuracy of elections and the ability of American citizens to 

participate in the electoral process, it would be appropriate to consider 

how such reforms could affect access for people with disabilities. 

We provided a copy of our draft report to selected representatives of 

national organizations representing state and county election officials and 

people with disabilities;16 the Department of Justice; and the Architectural 

and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (the Access Board) for 

their review. Overall, the reviewers stated that our report presented 

information on access to polling places and alternative voting methods in a 

fair and balanced manner. In some cases, the reviewers provided technical 

comments or made specific suggestions to improve the clarity of the 

report. We incorporated their comments where appropriate. 

16These national organizations include the National Association of State Election Directors, 

the Election Center’s National Task Force on Voting Accessibility, the National Association 

of County Recorders and Clerks, the American Foundation for the Blind, and the Paralyzed 

Veterans of America. 

Page 9 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Background	 Holding federal elections in the United States is a massive enterprise, 

administered primarily at the local level. On Election Day, millions of 

voters visit polling places across the country, which are located in schools, 

recreation centers, churches, various government buildings, and even 

private homes.17 For the 2000 election, counties and other local 

jurisdictions deployed about 1.4 million poll workers and more than 

700,000 voting machines to polling places across the country.

18 Each of the 

50 states and the District of Columbia also play a role in elections, by 

establishing election laws and policies and providing oversight in their 

respective states. The federal government’s role in the administration of 

elections is fairly limited. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is 

generally responsible for regulating the financing of elections, serving as a 

clearinghouse for information on elections, and providing advice and 

assistance to state and local election administrators.

19 

17Federal elections are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in evennumbered years. In the interests of convenience and economy, most states and many local 

jurisdictions also hold many of their elections on federal Election Day. 

18Data are from the National Association of Secretaries of State Election Reform 

Resolution, Feb. 6, 2001, http://www.nass.org/pubs/pubs_electionres.html (cited Mar. 26, 

2001). 

19For example, the FEC’s Office of Election Administration worked with industry experts to 

establish a voluntary set of standards for computer-based voting equipment in 1990. 

Page 10 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
While federal elections are generally conducted under state laws and 

policies, a few federal laws apply to voting and some provisions specifically 

address accessibility issues for voters with disabilities.20 Most notably, the 

Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (VAEHA), 

enacted in 1984, requires that political subdivisions responsible for 

conducting elections assure that all polling places for federal elections are 

accessible to elderly voters and voters with disabilities.21 Two exceptions 

are allowed: (1) in the case of an emergency as determined by the chief 

election officer of the state, and (2) when the chief election officer of the 

state determines that all potential polling places have been surveyed and no 

such accessible place is available, nor is the political subdivision able to 

make one temporarily accessible in the area involved. Any elderly voter or 

voter with a disability assigned to an inaccessible polling place, upon his or 

her advance request, must be assigned to an accessible polling place or be 

provided with an alternative means for casting a ballot on the day of the 

election.22 Under the VAEHA, the definition of “accessible” is determined 

under guidelines established by the state’s chief election officer, but the law 

does not specify what those guidelines shall contain or the form those 

guidelines should take. The VAEHA also contains provisions to make 

absentee voting more accessible and provides for voting aids at polling 

places.

23 

20For a broader review of federal laws affecting elections, see Elections: The Scope of 

Congressional Authority in Election Administration (GAO-01-470, Mar. 13, 2001). 

2142 U.S.C. section 1973ee et seq. 

22The Senate Report which accompanied the VAEHA noted that “...other means for casting a 

ballot could include, but would not be limited to, curbside voting or voting with an absentee 

ballot on the day of the election.” See S. Rep. No. 98-590, at 2 (1984). 

23Specifically, under the VAEHA, no notarization or medical certification shall be required of 

a voter with a disability with respect to an absentee ballot or an application for such ballot, 

except that a state may require medical certification to establish eligibility for a permanent 

absentee application or ballot, or to apply for an absentee ballot after the deadline has 

passed (42 U.S.C. section 1973ee-3(b)). In addition, each state shall make available voting 

aids at all polling places, including large-print instructions, and the chief election officer 

shall provide public notice, calculated to reach affected voters, of the availability of aids (42 

U.S.C. section 1973ee-3(a) and (c)). 

Page 11 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) also applies to voting. 

Title II of the ADA and implementing regulations require that people with 

disabilities have access to basic public services, including the right to vote; 

however, it does not strictly require that all polling place sites be 

accessible.24 Under the ADA, public entities must make reasonable 

modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to avoid discrimination 

against people with disabilities. Moreover, no individual with a disability 

may, by reason of the disability, be excluded from participating in or be 

denied the benefits of any public program, service, or activity. State and 

local governments may comply with ADA accessibility requirements in a 

variety of ways, such as by redesigning equipment, reassigning services to 

accessible buildings or alternative accessible sites, or altering existing 

facilities or constructing new ones.

25 However, state and local 

governments are not required to take actions that would threaten or 

destroy the historic significance of an historic property, fundamentally alter 

the nature of a service, or impose undue financial and administrative 

burdens. Moreover, a public entity is not required to make structural 

changes in existing facilities where other methods are effective in 

achieving compliance.

26 In choosing between available methods of 

complying with the ADA, state and local governments must give priority to 

the choices that offer services, programs, and activities in the most 

integrated setting appropriate. 

2442 U.S.C. sections 12131 to12134. Title II, Subtitle A, covers all activities of state and local 

governments, regardless of the government entity’s size or receipt of federal funding. 

2528 C.F.R. section 35.150(b)(1). All newly constructed public buildings where construction 

commenced after Jan. 26, 1992, must be readily accessible to individuals with disabilities (28 

C.F.R. section 35.151(a)). Alterations to existing facilities commenced after Jan. 26, 1992, 

must also be readily accessible to the maximum extent feasible (28 C.F.R. section 

35.151(b)). 

26Under “Project Civic Access,” the Department of Justice reached agreements with a 

number of cities and towns to open up civic life, including voting, to people with disabilities. 

Some agreements require altering polling places or providing curbside or absentee balloting. 

U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, Enforcing the 

ADA: A Status Report from the Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.: (Apr.-Sept. 2000). 

Page 12 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Title III of the ADA covers commercial facilities and places of “public 

accommodation” such as restaurants, private schools, and privately 

operated recreation centers.27 Such facilities may also be used as polling 

places. Under Title III, public accommodations must make reasonable 

modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to facilitate access for 

individuals with disabilities.28 They are also required to remove physical 

barriers in existing buildings when it is “readily achievable” to do so, that is, 

when it can be done without much difficulty and expense, given the public 

accommodation’s resources. In the event that removal of an architectural 

barrier cannot be accomplished easily, the accommodation may take 

alternative measures to facilitate accessibility.

29 All buildings newly 

constructed by public accommodations and commercial facilities must be 

readily accessible; alterations to existing buildings are required to the 

maximum extent feasible to be readily accessible to individuals with 

disabilities, including those who use wheelchairs.30 

Finally, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) provides that any voter 

requiring assistance to vote “by reason of blindness, disability, or inability 

to read or write may be given assistance by a person of the voter’s 

choice....”

31 

27Exempted from these requirements generally are private clubs and religious organizations, 

including places of worship. 

2828 C.F.R. section 36.302(a). 

29For example, the accommodation can rearrange furniture or provide curb service or home 

delivery (28 C.F.R. section 36.305). It may also widen a doorway to a narrower width or 

install a ramp with a steeper slope than is permitted by ADA accessibility guidelines (28 

C.F.R. section 36.304(d)(2)). 

3028 C.F.R. sections 36.401 to 36.406 (requirement applies to new construction with 

certificates of occupancy issued after Jan. 26, 1993, or alteration commenced after Jan. 26, 

1992). 

3142 U.S.C. section 1973aa-6. However, the VRA prohibits assistance provided by the voter’s 

employer or an agent of that employer, or an officer or agent of the voter’s union. 

Page 13 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Although these federal laws support the right to vote for persons with 

disabilities, concerns continue to be expressed about voting opportunities 

for people with disabilities. One recent study reported that people with 

disabilities were about 15 percent less likely to vote than those without 

disabilities—even after controlling for demographic and other factors 

related to voting—and suggested that voting behavior of people with 

disabilities is affected by access to polling places.32 According to a recent 

analysis of Census data, nearly 1 out of 5 Americans has some type of 

disability, and more than 1 in 10 has a severe disability. For Americans 65 

and over, 54.5 percent have a disability and 37.7 percent have a severe 

disability.

33 

32Douglas L. Kruse, Kay Schriner, Lisa Schur, and Todd Shields, Empowerment Through 

Civic Participation: A Study of the Political Behavior of People With Disabilities, Final 

Report to the Disability Research Consortium, Bureau of Economic Research, Rutgers 

University and New Jersey Developmental Disabilities Council (Apr. 1999). This study 

involved a national telephone survey of 1,240 Americans of voting age. The sample was 

based on a random selection of households and was stratified to include 700 people with 

disabilities. 

33Jack McNeil, Americans with Disabilities: 1997. U.S. Census Bureau Current Population 

Reports (Feb. 2001), pp. 9, 11. Data used in this report are from 1997. An analysis of more 

recent data was not available as of July 2001. 

Page 14 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Such concerns about voting opportunities have prompted action on the 

part of policymakers and other interested parties. For example, members 

of the Congress recently proposed several amendments to the VAEHA that 

were intended to improve voting access.34 In addition, the Election 

Center’s National Task Force on Accessible Elections, composed of state 

and local election officials and representatives of disability organizations, 

met in 1999 and issued a guidebook to assist local election officials in 

improving voting access.

35 Furthermore, following reports that elderly 

voters were unable to decipher ballots and that voting equipment created 

overcounts and undercounts in the 2000 election, members of the Congress 

and other policymakers have proposed a number of election reforms, 

including provisions for further improving voting access for people with 

disabilities.

36 Finally, the FEC has been working toward incorporating 

accessibility standards for electronic voting equipment into the update of 

its 1990 voluntary standards for computer-based voting equipment.37 In 

addition, the IEEE-SA Standards Board has recently approved a project to 

develop a standard by which electronic voting equipment may be evaluated 

for, among other things, accessibility.

38 

34S.511 sought to amend the VAEHA to ensure that all polling methods selected and used for 

federal elections are accessible to elderly voters and voters with disabilities. 

35Voting: A Constitutional Right for All Citizens—A Guidebook to Assist Election Officials 

to Achieve Equal Access for All Citizens to the Polling Place and the Ballot was published 

in 1999 by the National Task Force on Accessible Elections, initiated by the Election Center. 

The guidebook was based on a previous document originally published in 1986 by the 

National Organization on Disability and updated in 1987 by the National Easter Seal Society. 

36For example, H.R. 263, S.379, and S.565 call for the establishment of commissions to study 

or advise on, among other things, how to improve voting accessibility; and H.R.1151 directs 

the FEC to issue voluntary standards and make grants to improve the accessibility of voting. 

In addition, about 1,700 bills concerning election reform have been introduced in state 

legislatures around the country. 

37The FEC 1990 standards address only computer-based systems; aside from electronic 

tabulation machines, they do not address paper or punch card ballots as used by the voter, 

or mechanical voting machines. The standards are voluntary; states are free to adopt them 

in whole or in part, or reject them entirely. As of Apr. 2001, 35 states have adopted at least 

some part of FEC’s 1990 voting system standards. At this time, it cannot be known how 

many states will adopt FEC’s revised standards. 

38The IEEE-SA is the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Standards 

Association. 

Page 15 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
State Provisions and 

County Practices for 

Assuring Voting 

Accessibility Vary 

Widely 

Considerable variation exists in how states and counties attempt to meet 

the needs of voters with disabilities, both at polling places and through 

alternative methods of voting. Consistent with the VAEHA, all states and 

the District of Columbia have established provisions that address voting 

accessibility at polling places. However, state provisions vary in a number 

of ways, including whether these provisions take the form of statute or 

regulation, which carry the force and effect of law, or whether they exist 

only in policy. Similarly, states and counties vary in how they select, 

inspect, and modify polling places to assure their accessibility. Finally, if 

some polling places are not or cannot be made readily accessible, all states 

have provisions for voters with disabilities to vote absentee either on or 

before Election Day. Many but not all states also have provisions for other 

alternative voting methods or accommodations to facilitate voting by 

people with disabilities on or before Election Day. 

State Provisions for 

Addressing Accessibility of 

Polling Places Vary Widely 

All states have laws and other provisions concerning voting access for 

people with disabilities, including their access to polling places, but the 

extent and manner in which these provisions promote accessibility vary 

from state to state. This variation is consistent with the VAEHA, which 

requires that states establish guidelines but does not prescribe what those 

guidelines should contain. We found that state provisions vary in several 

ways, including the type or nature of the voting access provision and 

whether they exist in statutes or regulations—which carry the force and 

effect of law—or in policy documents. For example, table 1 shows that 36 

states have a statute or regulation stating that all polling places should be 

accessible, 7 states have a policy that requires or suggests that all polling 

places be accessible, and 8 states have no such provisions. Similarly, while 

some states have statutes or regulations covering Braille or large-type 

ballots or magnifiers for visually impaired voters, the majority of states 

have no such provisions. Overall, we found that some states have 

numerous provisions addressing voting and polling place accessibility, 

while some states have very few. (See app. IV, tables 9 and 10, for a 

detailed listing of each state’s provisions.) 

Page 16 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Table 1: State Provisions Concerning Accessibility of Polling Places 

Number of states 

with provisions 

State provisions 

Statute or 

regulation 

Policy 

onlya 

Number of 

states with 

no provision 

Voting accessibility 

Voting by people with disabilities explicitly 51 0 

addressed 

Polling place accessibility 

All polling places must/should be accessible 36 7 

State provisions contain one or more polling 23 19 

place accessibility standards 

Inspection of polling places to assess 15 14 

accessibility is required 

Reporting by counties to state on polling place 10 10 

accessibility is required 

Voting booth areas and equipment 

Voting booth areas must/should accommodate 17 16 

wheelchairs 

Voting systems must/should accommodate 13 11 

individuals with disabilities 

Aids for visually impaired voters 

Braille ballot or methods of voting must/may be 3 3 

provided 

Ballots with large type must/may be provided 2 2 

Magnifying instruments must/may be provided 7 15 

a

Policies for a particular provision were identified only if a state did not have either a statute or 

regulation for that provision. 

Source: GAO analysis of statutes, regulations, and other written provisions in 50 states and the 

District of Columbia. Provision categories were identified based on our review of these legal and policy 

documents. 

Page 17 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities

0 

8 

9 

22 

31 

18 

27 

45 

47 

29 
Even when states have similar types of provisions, the extent to which the 

provisions promote access varies considerably. For example, while some 

states’ statutes recommend that all polling places be accessible, other 

states require it without exception. In addition, some provisions are more 

explicit or exacting in promoting access than others. For example, 

according to one state’s statutes, all voting systems acquired on or after 

September 1, 1999, must comply with Title II of the ADA and must provide 

a practical and effective means for voters with most types of physical 

disabilities to cast a secret ballot.39 In contrast, another state’s regulations 

require a large-handled stylus for punching the ballot. 

Counties Are Generally 

Responsible for Assuring 

Polling Place Accessibility, 

but Practices Vary 

Consistent with the VAEHA, we found that primary responsibility for 

assuring accessibility of polling places, through selecting, inspecting, 

and/or modifying polling places or voting systems, typically rests with 

counties or local governments. Although there are many similarities in how 

counties carry out their responsibilities, there are also some key 

differences in their approach and level of effort for assuring polling place 

accessibility. For example, although counties and local governments are 

generally responsible for selecting polling places, we estimate from our 

county survey that, in at least 27 percent of all counties, accessibility to 

people with disabilities is not cited among the criteria used in the selection 

process. Additionally, while all polling places in at least 68 percent of all 

counties are inspected by county or local governments to determine if they 

meet voting accessibility policies, the frequency of these inspections varies 

widely. Some polling places may be inspected as frequently as once a year, 

while others may only be inspected upon selection or after a complaint or 

remodeling. Moreover, in a few counties, polling places conduct their own 

inspections. 

39This state’s requirements do not cover disabilities involving the combined and complete 

loss of both hearing and vision because, according to the state, the technology has not yet 

been developed that will allow a voter with this combination of disabilities to cast a secret 

ballot. 

Page 18 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
In addition, it is the county or local election office that is generally 

responsible for ensuring that polling places are accessible, such as by 

making and financing any polling place modifications and purchasing 

accessible voting equipment. Since 1995, in at least 32 percent of all 

counties, temporary or permanent modifications were made to polling 

places to improve their accessibility.

40 With respect to acquiring accessible 

voting equipment, county or local election officials in over 92 percent of all 

counties have the authority to decide the type of voting machines to be 

used. However, most states have established voting system standards with 

which counties must comply; some of these state standards require 

accommodations for individuals with disabilities, some do not. 

While counties and local election officials typically have primary 

responsibility for assuring the accessibility of polling places, table 2 shows 

that states provide varying types of assistance. 

Table 2: State Practices in Assuring and Improving Polling Place Accessibility 

Practice Number of states 

Assuring accessibility 

Provide counties with training or guidance 25 

Select or inspect polling places 5 

Both 8 

Neither 13 

Financing improvements to accessibility 

Help fund polling place modifications 3 

Help fund new voting systems 9 

Both 2 

Neither 37 

Responding to voter complaints 

Help respond to voter complaints, including access complaints 42 

No policies/procedures for filing or reviewing accessibility 

complaints 9 

Source: Interviews with state election officials in 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

Moreover, the amount of assistance provided by states can vary widely for 

similar types of assistance. For example, to assure accessibility of polling 

places, one state conducts an annual accessibility survey of polling places, 

40Examples of temporary modifications include portable ramps and temporary signs to 

designate accessible parking areas and entryways for people with disabilities. Permanent 

modifications include curb cuts and paved parking lots to accommodate wheelchairs. 

Page 19 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
provides inspection training for county officials, and performs inspections 

of polling places. In contrast, another state only offers guidance to local 

officials on how to comply with disability standards. 

State Provisions and County 

Practices Regarding 

Alternative Voting Methods 

and Accommodations Vary 

As shown in table 3, states provide alternative methods for voting on or 

before Election Day, but vary in the number and kind of alternatives and 

accommodations they make available to voters with disabilities. For 

example, in accordance with the VAEHA, all states allow absentee voting 

for voters with disabilities without notary or medical certification 

requirements.

41 However, the dates by which absentee ballots must be 

received vary considerably, with some states requiring that, to be counted, 

the ballot must be received before Election Day. In addition, 17 states 

permit permanent absentee voting, allowing voters with disabilities to 

receive absentee ballots on a continuing basis without reapplying for a 

ballot before each election. Further, 19 states have provisions for notifying 

voters in advance about the accessibility of their assigned polling places. 

Other accommodations that some, but not all, states allow include curbside 

voting; taking ballots to a voter’s residence; and allowing voters to use 

another, more accessible polling location either on or before Election 

Day.

42 (See app. IV, table 10 for a detailed state-by-state listing of alternative 

voting methods provided.) 

41Some states do require that absentee voting ballots be witnessed by one or two persons. 

Also, some states that allow absentee ballots or applications to be sent automatically to 

voters with disabilities require a medical certificate to establish eligibility. 

42Some states may not have provisions for certain accommodations or alternative voting 

methods because they require all polling places to be accessible. 

Page 20 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Table 3: State Provisions for Alternative Voting Methods and Accommodations 

Number of states 

Methods and accommodations Permitting No provision 

Absentee voting by maila 51 

Ballot due before Election Day 5 

Ballot due on Election Day 36 

Ballot may be received after Election Dayb 10 

Permanent absentee voting 17 

With restrictionsc 10 

Without restrictions 7 

Curbside voting on Election Dayd 28 

Ballot can be taken to voter’s residence on or before 21 

Election Daye 

Use of alternative, accessible polling place on 27 

Election Day 

Early voting 39 

With provision requiring accessible location 16 

No provision regarding accessible location 23 

Advance notice of inaccessible polling place 19 

Note: Some states may not have provisions for certain accommodations or alternative voting methods 

because they require all polling places to be accessible. 

a

See app. IV, table 10 for additional information on absentee voting, including absentee voting in 

person or by personal representative. Absentee voting provisions for overseas or military voters, and 

for emergencies, are not included in this analysis. 

b

Most of these states require ballots to be postmarked on or before Election Day. 

c

Examples of restrictions include medical certification requirements, or availability limited to voters with 

certain disabilities. 

d

Not included in the table are four states that prohibit curbside voting. 

e

Not included in the table are five states that prohibit taking a ballot to a voter’s residence. 

Source: GAO analysis of statues, regulations, and other written provisions provided by election officials 

in 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

Although states may offer similar types of voting alternatives and 

accommodations, wide variation exists in how these alternatives and 

accommodations are implemented. For example, one state requires that all 

registered voters be notified of the accessibility of their polling place by 

mail at least 21 days before the election. The notice must inform the voter 

of his or her right to curbside voting or to vote by absentee ballot. In 

comparison, another state only recommends that a list of accessible polling 

places be published in a newspaper no later than 4 days before the election. 

Page 21 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities

0 

34 

19 

25 

24 

12 

32 
Finally, in states that have no provisions for particular alternative voting 

methods or accommodations, county and local government practices may 

vary. For example, in a number of states that have no provision for 

curbside voting, we found that some counties and local governments offer 

curbside voting and some do not. Similarly, in a number of states that 

lacked provisions for allowing voters to use an alternative voting place on 

Election Day, our county survey data showed that some counties and local 

governments offer this alternative and some do not. 

Most Polling Places 

Have Features That 

May Impede Access, 

but Most Also Provide 

Accommodations That 

May Facilitate Voting 

Voting access for people with disabilities may be impeded by a variety of 

physical features at polling places; however, accommodations to facilitate 

voting are often made available. Although the extent to which any given 

feature may prevent access is unknown, most polling places in the 

contiguous United States have one or more physical features that may pose 

challenges for voters with disabilities. These features include a lack of 

accessible parking and barriers en route from the parking area to the voting 

room. Figure 2 shows key features we examined. Such potential 

impediments can be found at all types of buildings, both public and private. 

Additionally, the voting methods and equipment used inside polling places 

may pose challenges for some voters with disabilities. However, polling 

places generally provide accommodations, such as curbside voting, voting 

stations designed for people with disabilities, and voter assistance inside 

the voting room. 

Page 22 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Polling Place Facilities	 From our observations on Election Day, we estimate that, from the parking 

area to the voting room, 16 percent of all polling places in the contiguous 

United States have no potential impediments, 56 percent have one or more 

potential impediments but offer curbside voting, and 28 percent have one 

or more potential impediments and do not offer curbside voting.43 (See fig. 

3.) These potential impediments would primarily affect individuals with 

mobility impairments. Although curbside voting is not available at a 

number of polling places with potential impediments, as noted earlier, all 

states have provisions for absentee voting, and many states provide for 

other alternative voting methods or accommodations that may facilitate 

voting by people with disabilities on or before Election Day.

44 

43About 12 percent of all polling places have no potential impediments and offer curbside 

voting. 

44For example, a number of states allow absentee ballots to be cast by mail on Election Day. 

In addition, some state laws and policies allow ballots to be taken to voters’ residences on 

or before Election Day, or allow voters to cast their ballots at another location that is 

accessible on Election Day. 

Page 23 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Figure 2: Key Features at Polling Places 

32" min. 

36" min. 

24" max. distance 

for min. clearance 

A 

A Parking area 

A1 On- or off-street parking is designated 

for persons with disabilities 

B 

B Route from parking area to building 

entrance 

B1. Surface is paved or has no abrupt 

changes over 1/4 inch 

B2. Curbs are ramped or cut, and are 36 

inches or more wide 

B3. Path or ramp along path is 36 inches 

or more wide (may narrow to 32 inches 

for no more than 2 feet) 

B4. Slope of path or ramp along path is no 

steeper than 1:12 

B5. Steps have handrails that extend at 

least 1 foot beyond the landing 

B6. Ramps have two handrails (one on 

each side) if highest point is more than 6 

inches off the ground 

C C Entrance area to the building 

C1. Doorway threshold does not exceed 

1/2 inch in height 

C2. Single- or double-door openings are 32 

inches or more wide 

C3. Closed door difficult for a 

person in a wheelchair to open 

D D Curbside voting 

D1. Voting available at curbside 

C2 C2

Page 24 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
E E Route from inside the building entrance 

to the voting room 

E1. Doorway threshold does not exceed 

1/2 inch in height 

E2. Single- or double-door openings are 32 

inches or more wide 

E3. Steps are not required to reach the 

voting room 

E4. Corridors have clearances 36 inches 

or more wide (may narrow to 32 inches 

for no more than 2 feet) 

E5. Slope of ramp no steeper than 1:12 

Level landing Level 

landing 

12" Horizontal projection or run 

1" Rise 

Surface of 

ramp 

F3F3 

E5 

E5 B4

F2F2 

27” min. 

19” min. 

F1 F1

Voting stations 

F1. Voting stations configured for sitting 

can accommodate a wheelchair 

F2. Voting stations configured for standing 

have forward reach no lower than 15 inches 

and no higher than 48 inches 

F3. Voting stations configured for standing 

have side reach no lower than 9 inches 

and no higher than 54 inches 

F F

54" max 

9" min 

48" max 

15" min. 

Page 25 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Figure 3: Prevalence of Potential Impediments at Polling Places and Availability of 

Curbside Voting 

16% 

56% 

28% 

Percentage of polling places with no 

potential impediments 

Percentage of polling places with 

one or more potential impediments 

that offer curbside voting 

Percentage of polling places with one 

or more potential impediments that do not 

offer curbside voting 

Note: These potential impediments are located along the route from the parking area to the voting 

room. 

Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on Nov. 7, 2000. 

As shown in figure 4, most polling places with potential impediments also 

offer curbside voting: of the 84 percent of polling places that have one or 

more potential impediments, 67 percent offer curbside voting. Figure 4 

also shows that most of the potential impediments occur in two of the four 

location areas we examined—en route from the parking area to the 

building, and at the entrance of the building. For example, 57 percent of all 

polling places have some type of potential impediment from the parking 

area to the building, such as unpaved/poor surfaces, or paths or ramps with 

slopes that exceed the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility 

Guidelines,

45 which could hinder the approach of a voter in a wheelchair. 

Appendix V contains a listing of some of the potential impediments in each 

location area. 

45The 1991 Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and 

Facilities require that slopes on sidewalks/pathways or ramps rise no more than 1 inch over 

a 12-inch distance; that is, a slope no steeper than 1:12. The Guidelines are generally 

mandatory for new construction and for alterations of public buildings, places of public 

accommodations such as private schools, and commercial facilities. Places of worship are 

exempt. 

Page 26 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Figure 4: Percentage of Polling Places With Potential Impediments That Offer 

Curbside Votinga 

a

Sampling errors on the percentages of polling places with potential impediments range from 4 to 8 

percentage points at the 95-percent confidence level; the sampling errors on the percentages of polling 

places offering curbside voting range from 10 to 16 percentage points at the 95-percent confidence 

level. 

Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on Nov. 7, 2000. 

We also found that many polling places have more than one potential 

impediment, some of which occur in more than one location area. For 

example, figure 5 shows that 63 percent of all polling places have two or 

more potential impediments. Further, in the four location areas we 

examined, we found that 52 percent of polling places have potential 

impediments in more than one location area. A small percentage of all 

Page 27 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
polling places (5 percent) have a potential impediment in all four location 

areas. 

Figure 5: Percentage of All Polling Places by Number of Potential Impediments 

Percentage 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

16% 

84% 

63% 

45% 

29% 

21% 

14% 

Zero One or Two or Three or Four or Five or Six or 

more more more more more more 

Number of Potential Impediments 

Notes: Thirteen was the maximum number of potential impediments we found at any one polling place. 

Sampling errors range from 4 to 8 percentage points at the 95-percent confidence level. 

Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on Nov. 7, 2000. 

Our polling place data also show that potential impediments to access 

occur at fairly high rates regardless of the type of building used as a polling 

place. Table 4 shows that, for each type of building, 76 percent or more 

have potential impediments to voting access for people with disabilities. 

Page 28 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Table 4: Prevalence of Potential Impediments by Type of Building 

Type of building 

Percentage of all 

polling places 

Percentage of buildings with at 

least one potential impediment 

School 24% 78% 

Library or recreational/ 21% 90% 

community center 

House of worship 18% 82% 

City/town hall or courthouse 14% 91% 

Police/fire station 9% 76% 

Private home 4% 93% 

Other

a 10% 78% 

Note: Sampling errors for the types of buildings as a percentage of all polling places range from 3 to 6 

percentage points at the 95-percent confidence level; the sampling errors on the percentage of these 

buildings with potential impediments range from 8 to 15 percentage points at the 95-percent 

confidence level. 

a

Includes National Guard Armories, lodges and fraternal organizations, apartment buildings, and 

private businesses. 

Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on Nov. 7, 2000. 

Moreover, about 70 percent of all polling places are in facilities—such as 

schools, recreational/community centers, city/town halls, police/fire 

stations, libraries, and courthouses—potentially subject to either Title II or 

III of the ADA, irrespective of their use as polling places.46 Our polling 

place data show that, of the polling places located in these types of 

facilities, about 84 percent have one or more features that may present 

challenges to physical access for voters with disabilities.47 Potential 

impediments found at these facilities include high door thresholds, ramps 

with steep slopes, and a lack of accessible parking. However, under the 

ADA, only new construction and alterations must be readily accessible, and 

we did not determine the date that polling place facilities were either 

constructed or altered. In addition, due to the number of possible 

46As noted previously, Title II, Subtitle A, which applies to state and local governments, 

requires that public programs, services, and activities be accessible to individuals with 

disabilities (42 U.S.C. sections 12131 to 12134). Title III requires reasonable modifications in 

policies, practices, or procedures to be made by public accommodations to achieve 

accessibility for people with disabilities (42 U.S.C. section 12182(b)). Also, new 

construction and alteration of existing facilities by state and local governments, public 

accommodations, and commercial facilities generally must be readily accessible to 

individuals with disabilities (42 U.S.C. section 12183(b)(2)). 

47Sampling error of +/-6 percentage points at the 95-percent confidence level. 

Page 29 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
approaches for meeting ADA requirements on accessibility to public 

services and because places of public accommodation need remove 

barriers only where it is easy to do so, our data do not allow us to 

determine whether polling places with potential impediments would meet 

ADA requirements. 

Inside the Voting Room
 Inside the voting room, many of the voting methods and the equipment 

used may prove challenging for voters with certain types of disabilities. 

Figure 6 shows that the use of ballots marked by a pen or pencil— 

traditional paper ballots and mark-sense ballots used with optical scanning 

equipment—is the most widespread voting method. This method is 

followed in prevalence by punch-card ballots, direct recording electronic 

(“electronic”) voting equipment, and lever machines. Table 5 details the 

potential challenges these methods may present to voters with visual or 

dexterity impairments.

48 In addition, voters in wheelchairs may have 

difficulty reaching and manipulating the handles on lever machines, and 

they also may find it difficult to reach and press the buttons on electronic 

voting equipment. Although electronic voting equipment may pose 

challenges for some voters with disabilities, some types of this method may 

be adapted with audio and other aids to accommodate a range of 

impairments. 

48We identified these challenges from interviews with election officials and representatives 

of disability organizations. We did not observe whether voters encountered difficulties 

using these methods. 

Page 30 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Figure 6: Voting Methods Used at Polling Places 

Note: Sampling errors range from 9 to 13 percentage points at the 95-percent confidence level. 

a

According to 2000 Election Data Services data, about 3 percent of all precincts use traditional handcounted paper ballots. 

b

We observed two types of equipment used with punch-card ballots: Votomatic and Datavote. 

Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on Nov. 7, 2000. 

Table 5: Potential Challenges Posed by Various Voting Methods 

Potential challenges for voters with 

Voting method Dexterity impairments Visual impairments 

Paper or mark-sense ballots Holding the pencil or pen	 Reading the text on the 

ballots 

Punch-card ballots	 Pinpointing the stylus, or Pinpointing the stylus, or 

applying the appropriate reading the text on the 

amount of pressure to punch ballots 

holes 

Electronic voting equipment	 Pressing the buttons or Reading the text on the 

images on the machine screen or the machine 

Lever machine Manipulating the handles to Reading the text, or 

operate the machine manipulating the handles to 

operate the machine 

Source: GAO interviews with election officials and representatives of disability organizations. 

Page 31 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
For voters experiencing difficulties using these various voting methods, we 

found that one or more accommodations may be provided. Nearly all 

polling places allow voters to be assisted either by a friend or a poll 

worker.

49 Forty-seven percent of all polling places provide magnifying 

devices to assist voters with visual impairments.50 Additionally, 51 percent 

of all polling places provide voting instructions or sample ballots in 18-

point or larger type.51 However, none of the polling places that we visited 

had special ballots or voting equipment adapted for blind voters, such as 

audiotaped ballots, or Braille ballots or sleeves.52 

The configuration of voting stations, tables, or booths used in polling 

places may pose additional challenges for voters in wheelchairs. Fifty-two 

percent of all polling places have voting stations set up for people to sit and 

vote, 38 percent have stations set up for people to stand and vote, and 10 

percent have stations set up for either seated or standing voting.53 At voting 

stations configured for sitting, 43 percent do not have the minimum height, 

width, or depth dimensions to position a wheelchair under a table.54 

Moreover, many of the voting booths configured for standing have one or 

more features that might create an impediment for a voter in a wheelchair. 

For example, 51 percent of the booths configured for standing do not 

accommodate a voter in a wheelchair who has to reach forward to mark or 

cast a ballot, and 55 percent do not accommodate a person in a wheelchair 

who has to reach sideways to vote.

55 However, as noted earlier, nearly all 

polling places allow a friend or poll worker to assist with voting. 

49As noted previously, under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, voters requiring 

assistance to vote may be given assistance by a person of their choosing, such as a friend or 

an election official. 

50Sampling error of +/-11 percentage points at the 95-percent confidence level. 

51Sampling error of +/- 11 percentage points at the 95-percent confidence level. 

52A Braille sleeve is an overlay that covers a ballot, or a sheath into which a ballot is inserted. 

The sleeve is aligned so that the Braille corresponds to the items on the ballot. A person 

marks through the sleeve in order to cast his/her vote. 

53Sampling errors range from 5 to 11 percentage points at the 95-percent confidence level. 

54Sampling error of +/- 13 percentage points at the 95-percent confidence level. 

55Sampling errors for the side and forward-reach findings are +/-17 percentage points at the 

95-percent confidence level. 

Page 32 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
A Variety of Challenges 

Face States and 

Counties as They Work 

Toward Improving 

Access to Voting 

Although a number of efforts have been made to improve voting access for 

people with disabilities, election officials cited a variety of challenges they 

face in trying to do so. Challenges cited by election officials include the 

limited availability of accessible buildings and the lack of authority to 

modify buildings to make them more accessible. Election officials also told 

us that the cost of acquiring voting equipment that is more accessible is 

another major challenge. Finally, election officials cited a number of legal, 

administrative, and operational challenges associated with implementing 

accommodations and voting alternatives that might make voting more 

accessible. Nevertheless, a number of states and counties have been 

successful at surmounting some of these difficulties. 

Improving Polling Place 

Accessibility Hindered by 

the Lack of Accessible 

Buildings and Authority or 

Funds to Modify Them 

Some counties find that a major challenge to improving polling place 

accessibility is a lack of accessible buildings, according to our national 

survey of county election officials. Comments from both state and county 

election officials indicate that problems finding accessible buildings can 

occur in both rural and urban locations. For example, in rural areas, the 

lack of buildings or the existence of rough terrain can create difficulties; 

whereas in cities, a lack of parking or the prevalence of older buildings that 

may be not accessible can be a problem. 

However, even when accessible buildings exist in an area, election officials 

may lack the authority to use them. While some county election officials 

told us they had the authority to use public buildings as polling places, 

other officials indicated that they did not have this authority. Furthermore, 

states and counties generally lack the authority to require the owners of 

private buildings to make their buildings available for elections. According 

to our survey results, at least 26 percent of all counties find it difficult to 

provide accessible polling places because buildings are under the control 

of persons who do not want them to be used as polling places. In addition, 

while at least 86 percent of the counties can provide private building 

owners some compensation for the use of their buildings, the amount may 

be limited to paying janitorial costs or a small usage fee—sometimes less 

than $100 per facility—which may not serve as a persuasive incentive. 

One option for overcoming the limited supply of accessible buildings is to 

modify buildings, for example by installing ramps or widening doorways. 

While election officials have reported some success with this option, some 

indicated that their ability to make modifications has been impeded by 

authority limitations and funding constraints. For publicly held buildings, 

Page 33 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
we found that the county or local election office has the authority to order 

permanent modifications to public polling places in less than one-third of 

the counties. For privately held buildings, election officials generally need 

the owners’ permission to make temporary or permanent modifications. In 

addition, some state and county election officials indicated that funding 

constraints could also limit needed modifications. Despite these 

limitations, we estimate that, in at least 32 percent of all counties, one or 

more polling places may have been modified, either temporarily or 

permanently, since 1995 to improve accessibility. Furthermore, while 

election officials may not have the authority or funding to alleviate all 

accessibility problems, there may still be opportunities for some 

improvements, such as using signs to designate accessible parking and 

pathways. 

Providing Accessible Voting 

Equipment Is Hindered by 

Funding Constraints and 

Concerns about Reliability 

and Security 

Most state election officials told us that limited funding is one of the main 

barriers to improving voting accessibility, especially with regard to 

providing more accessible voting equipment. While some states may 

provide funds to ease this burden, according to our county survey, the 

county and local levels of government generally bear the cost for 

purchasing, leasing, or modifying voting equipment. Although a number of 

election officials and disability advocates we interviewed agreed that the 

new electronic voting equipment can accommodate a wider range of 

disabilities than other voting methods, they also expressed concern that it 

can be expensive, despite dramatic price reductions in the recent past.56 At 

the time of our interviews, election officials estimated that each electronic 

voting unit can cost from $3,000 to about $6,000, with attachments to 

enable voting by people with various disabilities costing up to an additional 

$1,000 per unit.57 Moreover, competing priorities for funding at a local level 

may limit funding for improving voting accessibility, according to several 

election officials we interviewed. For example, counties needing road 

56Currently, a number of counties are looking to acquire new voting systems—electronic 

voting equipment or optical scanning systems. In comparing these systems, in addition to 

initial costs, counties would likely consider recurring costs (such as the cost of printing 

ballots, programming, training staff, operating and maintaining equipment, and storage) as 

well as other factors (such as reliability, security, voter accessibility, and ease of use and 

administration). An upcoming GAO report will provide information on the cost, security, 

efficiency, accuracy, and ease of use of voting systems. 

57These attachments vary by manufacturer and might include audio features for voters who 

are blind or visually impaired, or features that would allow people with severe disabilities to 

vote using breathing or head movements. 

Page 34 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
improvements may decide to pave roads rather than purchase or lease new 

voting equipment. 

In addition to costs, concerns about the reliability and security of 

electronic equipment can discourage its adoption, according to election 

officials we interviewed. For example, without the traditional paper ballot 

to rely upon, some election officials fear that the equipment could be 

tampered with to produce unreliable or fraudulent election outcomes. One 

state official told us that several of the counties in his state that are 

accustomed to paper ballots do not want electronic voting machines, even 

if the state pays for them. Also state election official told us that some 

officials are concerned because this newer technology does not create 

traditional paper ballots and would not, therefore, allow for a standard 

ballot recount to verify the election outcome. However, newer electronic 

systems have enhancements that allow voters to confirm their selections 

and that improve the ability of election officials to verify election results. 

Although some counties indicated that they had purchased or were 

considering the purchase of newer electronic voting equipment, a number 

have indicated that they had made improvements to their existing 

equipment to enhance voter accessibility. For example, some counties 

reported modifying existing voting machines—for example, by making 

them adjustable—so that individuals who need to vote in a sitting position 

can vote independently. Some counties using punch-card equipment 

reported providing a larger stylus to make it easier for those who could not 

grip or otherwise vote using a regular stylus. Also, some county officials 

told us that, upon request, they try to provide special aids—such as Braille 

sleeves for the paper ballot and an accompanying audiotape or Braille 

ballots—so that blind individuals can vote independently, although we did 

not observe such aids on Election Day.

58 

While incremental improvements to older voting technology may enable 

more people with disabilities to vote independently, some election officials 

and disability advocates we interviewed believe these measures have 

shortcomings. For example, according to spokespersons for national 

advocacy groups for people with disabilities, blind voters may not be 

comfortable with audiotapes because using them is time-consuming and 

58Special aids for the blind may not have been observed on Election Day because they may 

not have been requested in advance by voters in the polling places that we visited or the 

local poll workers we interviewed may not have been aware of these aids. 

Page 35 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
does not allow them to independently confirm that they marked their 

ballots correctly. Moreover, only a small percentage of blind individuals 

have the Braille proficiency needed to vote using a Braille ballot. In 

addition, some voters with severe dexterity problems may not be able to 

mark their ballots even with a larger punching stylus or special writing 

implement. 

Alternative Voting Methods 

and Accommodations 

Provide Options, but Also 

Present Access and 

Implementation Challenges 

Expanding the availability of alternative voting methods or 

accommodations can provide voters with additional options, but 

implementing these changes can present election officials with legal, 

administrative, and operational challenges. For example, expanding the 

use of curbside voting could allow more voters with disabilities to cast 

their votes at neighborhood polling places on Election Day. For election 

officials, implementing curbside voting requires having staff trained and 

available to assist voters outside the polling place. Moreover, in some 

states where curbside voting is either prohibited or not currently used, 

policymakers would need to be convinced that providing this 

accommodation would not increase the potential for fraud as a result of 

ballots being taken out of the polling place facility. Disability advocates 

told us that this accommodation and other alternatives represent important 

and needed options for some voters with disabilities; at the same time, 

advocates believe that such alternatives do not provide an equal 

opportunity to vote in the same manner as the general public and should 

not be viewed as permanent solutions for inaccessible polling places. 

Given the limited availability of accessible polling places, other options 

that could allow more voters with disabilities to vote at a polling place on 

Election Day include reassigning them to another, more accessible polling 

place or creating accessible superprecincts in which voters from more than 

one precinct would all vote in the same building. For voters with 

disabilities, reassignment to more accessible polling places may require 

them to travel farther to vote. For election officials, some challenges to 

reassigning voters are ensuring that they have notified the voter, trained 

poll workers, and provided an appropriate ballot at the reassigned location. 

In comparison, superprecincts could inconvenience many voters by 

requiring extra travel for those whose polling place was relocated. The 

challenge in creating a superprecinct that is also accessible is finding an 

accessible facility of sufficient size and amenities to meet the needs of a 

large number of voters. 

Page 36 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
In addition, some alternatives and accommodations allow individuals to 

vote before Election Day, including voting in person at early voting sites or 

using less restrictive absentee voting options, such as “no excuse” or 

permanent absentee voting.

59 Some voters may prefer voting before 

Election Day because it provides greater flexibility and convenience. For 

example, some voters with disabilities may want to use an absentee voting 

alternative and may find permanent absentee voting more convenient than 

reapplying every election. However, the various limitations and 

requirements of these voting options, such as traveling to an early voting 

site or providing a doctor’s certification to qualify for permanent absentee 

voting, may discourage the use of these options by some voters with 

disabilities whose only obstacle to voting as others do is an inaccessible 

polling place. For election officials, establishing early voting sites and 

expanding the number of absentee voters add to the cost and complexity of 

running an election. In addition, some election officials told us that 

policymakers in their states are reluctant to adopt or expand voting 

options—for example, to allow permanent absentee voting—because they 

fear it may increase the risk of fraud. At the same time, these options have 

been adopted by a number of states. A unique early voting option chosen 

by Oregon’s voters is universal vote-by-mail. While there were challenges 

in implementing this method, such as establishing uniform statewide voting 

procedures, there have also been benefits, such as reducing the cost of 

holding an election, according to an Oregon election official. 

59“No excuse” absentee voting is available to all voters—that is, voters do not need to give a 

reason to vote absentee. 

Page 37 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Internet voting—an alternative that has been only used on a limited basis to 

date—also presents increased participation opportunities and 

implementation challenges.60 Internet voting could potentially provide 

voters the convenience of voting from remote locations, such as their 

homes, and thereby provide another option for increasing voter 

participation. However, numerous election officials and others have 

expressed concerns about the security and reliability of the Internet and 

lack of widespread access to it. To resolve these issues, task force studies 

have suggested that Internet voting could be introduced in phases.

61 

Appendix VI provides a summary of the wide assortment of issues and 

challenges for each voting accommodation and alternative method 

discussed above. 

60There have been several Internet voting pilots and demonstrations in the last 2 years, 

including (1) the Republican Party straw poll in Alaska; (2) the Presidential Primary in 

Thurston, Washington; (3) the Democratic Party Primary in Arizona; and (4) the Presidential 

Election, in which the Department of Defense piloted on-line voting for about 100 personnel 

from the states of South Carolina, Florida, Texas, and Utah. In other pilot tests, four 

counties in California held on-line voting demonstrations prior to Election Day and one 

county in Arizona held them on Election Day. 

61These phases might include first offering Internet voting only at polling places, where 

election officials could better ensure the security and reliability of the connection, and then 

expanding it to kiosks and other remote locations. See California Internet Voting Task 

Force, A Report on the Feasibility of Internet Voting (Jan. 2000); and Internet Policy 

Institute, Report of the National Workshop on Internet Voting: Issues and Research Agenda 

(Mar. 2001). 

Page 38 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
We are sending copies of this report to the Department of Justice, the 

Federal Election Commission, the Architectural and Transportation 

Barriers Compliance Board (the Access Board), appropriate congressional 

committees, and other interested parties. We will also make copies 

available to others on request. If you or your staff have any questions 

concerning this report, please call me or Carol Dawn Petersen, Assistant 

Director, at (202) 512-7215. Staff acknowledgements are listed in appendix 

VII. 

Barbara D. Bovbjerg 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

and Income Security Issues 

Page 39 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I 

Scope and Methods


This appendix provides more detail about the procedures used to conduct 

our legal analysis, collect information from states and counties, and select 

our sample of polling places. It also provides more information about the 

final sample of polling places that was used in our analysis, as well as 

details about the analysis itself. 

Analysis of State Laws 

and Written Policies 

Our review of state provisions for assuring voting accessibility included a 

review of laws (statutes and regulations) and written policies related to 

accessibility of polling places and alternative voting methods and 

accommodations. 

With respect to polling place accessibility, our review focused on state 

provisions concerning accessibility standards, inspection and reporting 

requirements, voting booth and system accommodations, and aids for 

voters with visual impairments. With respect to alternative voting methods 

and accommodations, our review focused on state provisions concerning 

early voting and absentee voting (including methods and deadlines), 

permanent absentee voting (including restrictions), curbside voting, taking 

ballots to voters’ residences, assigning voters to more accessible polling 

places, and notifying voters in advance of inaccessible polling places. 

To identify relevant laws and written policies, we first interviewed 

appropriate election officials in 50 states and the District of Columbia to 

discuss their laws and policies concerning polling place accessibility and 

alternative voting methods. We asked these officials to provide us with 

legal citations to laws and copies of written policies on any state policies 

they identified. In addition to the information provided by state election 

officials, we researched legal databases and the Internet to identify any 

additional state statutes, regulations, and written policies concerning 

polling place accessibility or alternative voting methods or 

accommodations. We did not include emergency provisions or provisions 

applicable only to military, out-of-state, or overseas voters. 

To determine a state’s provisions concerning polling place accessibility or 

alternative voting methods or accommodations, we first reviewed state 

statutes. If state statutes did not specifically address the issue, we then 

reviewed any applicable regulations. In the absence of an applicable 

statute or regulation, we reviewed written policies and guidelines we 

identified and collected or had been provided by the state. After 

determining each state’s provisions, and whether the provisions were 

based in state law or written policy, we shared our determinations with 

Page 40 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I

Scope and Methods

each state election office. We reviewed changes suggested by state 

election offices, reviewed any additional documents submitted, and 

adjusted our determinations where appropriate. We generally deferred to 

interpretations by a state of its own statutory or regulatory provisions. 

However, as a rule, we did not include policies or practices that were not 

supported by a written document. 

Data Collection From 

States, Counties, and 

Selected National 

Organizations 

To identify efforts and challenges to improving voting accessibility for 

people with disabilities, we interviewed election officials in all 50 states 

and the District of Columbia, as well as in our statistical sample of 100 

counties.1 We also interviewed selected representatives of national 

organizations representing states, counties, and people with disabilities to 

obtain their views on the costs of accessible equipment and the extent to 

which alternative voting methods and accommodations improve access for 

voters with disabilities. We did not independently verify the information 

provided by election officials or organization representatives through our 

interviews. 

Our interviews of election officials in the 50 states and the District of 

Columbia focused on state laws concerning absentee voting requirements, 

as well as laws, regulations, and written policies concerning voting access 

for people with disabilities. We also asked for information about the state’s 

role in assuring compliance with state policy, or providing or controlling 

resources for assuring compliance. Other topics covered in the interview 

were the state’s role in making polling places accessible, the voting systems 

used in the state, any efforts initiated by the states to increase voting 

access for people with disabilities, and whether they perceived any barriers 

or constraints to such efforts. 

For the 100 counties, we generally contacted county election officials 

because in most states responsibility for conducting elections is entrusted 

to them. However, in four counties we contacted election officials at a 

subcounty level, such as towns and cities, where the responsibility for 

elections resides. We then combined their responses to create county level 

responses. 

1

Selection of the counties is discussed in the next section on selection of polling places. 

Page 41 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I

Scope and Methods

In contacting the 100 counties we intended to visit on Election Day, we 

generally conducted two interviews—one before Election Day and one 

after. The first interview was designed to alert appropriate election 

officials to the nature of our inquiry and to ask for their cooperation so that 

we could visit polling places in their counties on Election Day.

2 We also 

asked for information about county laws or policies on voting access for 

people with disabilities, as well as county practices such as assessment and 

inspection of polling places, choice of buildings to be used as polling 

places, choice of voting methods and machines, and efforts for 

improvements in accessibility. 

Our second interview with county and local election officials was 

conducted after Election Day and was designed to collect more 

information about county practices in selecting polling places, obtaining 

and using voting equipment, and handling voter complaints, as well as 

accessibility of polling places and voting methods in the county and steps 

the county may take when a polling place is not accessible. In addition, we 

asked for information about types of facilities used in conducting an 

election and resources for meeting accessibility standards and improving 

accessibility. We also asked for information about voter participation, 

extent of polling place resources, and officials’ opinions about major 

barriers and constraints to improving accessibility to voting for people with 

disabilities.

3 

For our interviews with election officials from states and counties, we used 

three data collection instruments (DCIs) to ensure that questions were 

asked, and responses were documented, in a consistent manner. The DCIs­

-one for the state interviews and two for the county interviews--were 

developed in consultation with GAO methodologists. To further ensure 

reliable and accurate results, the DCIs were administered by GAO staff 

who were trained to administer them. 

Our interviews with selected representatives of national organizations 

were designed to collect more in-depth information on the cost and 

challenges of acquiring more-accessible voting equipment, and on the 

challenges and benefits of implementing alternative voting methods and 

2

Some interviews with county officials before Election Day covered only the logistics of our 

visits, and in these cases all other questions were covered in the second interview. 

3

Some counties were unable to respond to some of our questions; the data from these 

questions therefore yielded inconclusive results and are not included in this report. 

Page 42 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I

Scope and Methods

accommodations. GAO staff asked each representative the same set of 

questions to ensure we obtained comprehensive and balanced views on 

each issue. 

Selection of Polling 

Places 

Our selection of a sample of polling places used what is known as a twostage sampling method. The first stage was the selection of a sample of 

counties. Each of those counties was then treated as a “cluster” of polling 

places. In the second stage, we selected a sample of polling places from 

each cluster. 

Because there is no central list of all of the polling places in the United 

States, the first stage of our sampling method started with a list of all 

counties, since most elections are administered at the county level.

4 For 

cost and efficiency reasons we confined our list of counties to those in the 

contiguous United States, thus excluding the states of Alaska and Hawaii. 

We also excluded the state of Oregon because, since 1998, elections in that 

state have been conducted almost exclusively by mail. The final number of 

counties from which we sampled was 3,074. Because the unit of analysis 

we were ultimately interested in was the polling place, we used a 

probability proportional to size sampling method to select the counties. We 

wanted to base the probability that a particular county would be selected 

on the number of polling places in that county, so that counties with many 

polling places would be more likely to be selected than counties with few. 

Since information on the number of polling places in each county is not 

readily available, we based our selection of counties on the size of the 

voting-age population of each county (age 18 and over), with morepopulous counties more likely to be selected than less-populous counties. 

We considered the voting-age population to be an acceptable correlate to 

the number of polling places. We therefore arranged our list of counties so 

that, for each county, the probability of selection would be proportional to 

the size of its voting-age population. We then randomly selected, without 

replacement, 100 counties from that list. 

4

To identify counties we used the Census Bureau’s Population Estimates for Counties by 

Age and Sex: Annual Time Series (1998). From this database we pulled the Federal 

Information Processing Standard codes for counties and other entities treated as legal 

and/or statistical subdivisions. The following entities are listed by the U.S. Census Bureau 

as equivalent to counties: parishes in Louisiana; the District of Columbia; and the 

independent cities in Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia. 

Page 43 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I

Scope and Methods

The second stage of our sampling method involved selecting from each 

county the specific polling places to be visited. Once the 100 counties were 

selected, we contacted county election officials and asked for the most 

recent listing of all polling places in each.

5 From each county list, we 

randomly selected eight polling places for a total sample of 800 polling 

places. These 800 polling places were located in 33 states. Our sampling 

method produced a representative sample of polling places in the 

contiguous United States. To preserve the integrity of the data collection 

effort, the selected polling place locations were not disclosed prior to 

Election Day. Sampling errors for the polling place data generally range 

between 3 and 10 percentage points.

6 

Description of Site 

Visits and the Data 

Collection Instrument 

On Election Day, GAO deployed one- or two-person “teams” composed of 

experienced GAO staff to counties in our sample. Each team was equipped 

with a DCI on which to record their observations; a measuring tape; and the 

“ADA Accessibility Stick II,” a tool designed to measure potential 

structural impediments in buildings and on walkways.

7 GAO monitored the 

activities of the teams throughout Election Day and provided advice by 

telephone from our Washington, D.C., and San Francisco offices. 

To ensure uniform data collection across the country, all teams received 

training in the use of the ADA Accessibility Stick IITM and the proper way to 

fill out each question on the DCI. Teams were instructed on how to 

interview the poll worker in charge of each polling place about 

accommodations for voters with disabilities and were instructed to review 

their responses with them.8 Teams also received instructions on the 

appropriate times for visiting polling places and were instructed not to 

5

In the states where elections were administered at the township level, we contacted all 

townships within the selected county and asked for their listings of polling places. In some 

cases we found polling place lists on county or township Web sites. 

6

Sampling errors for the county-level data had a wider range (generally between 4 and 25 

percentage points) than the errors associated with the national polling place data because 

we used a probability proportional to size sampling method to select the counties. 

7

The ADA Accessibility Stick II is supplied by Access, Inc., Lawrence, Kan. 

8

In addition, if the teams did not locate an accessible parking area, route, entrance, or 

pathway, they were instructed to ask the poll worker in charge of the polling place whether 

one existed and, if so, to show it to them. The teams were instructed to then revise the DCI 

where appropriate. 

Page 44 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I

Scope and Methods

approach voters or interfere with the voting process in any way during their 

visits. 

Representatives appointed by the county election officials escorted many 

of the teams to the polling places. The escorts accompanied the teams to 

polling places, and facilitated access into the voting room. To maintain the 

integrity of the data collection process, GAO teams were instructed not to 

disclose the location of the selected polling places ahead of time.9 

Due to constraints of time and geography, some teams were not able to 

visit all eight polling places in their assigned county. We preserved the 

randomness of our sample, however, by having the teams visit the polling 

places in the same order in which they were pulled from the sample. That 

is, each team was given an ordered list of polling places to visit and was 

expected to follow the order number in making their visits. If for some 

reason a polling place in a particular county was skipped, all polling places 

farther down that list were dropped from the sample. Thus, for example, 

polling site number five was not included in the final sample unless polling 

sites one through four had also been visited. 

In addition, some counties did not allow us to visit their polling places on 

Election Day itself, but made the sites available to us on an alternative date. 

Ultimately, all teams visited at least three and as many as eight polling 

places. In total, we visited 496 polling places in 85 counties on Election 

Day and another 89 polling places in 15 counties either before or after 

Election Day.

10 

9

GAO teams disclosed the location of the polling places to the escorts on the morning of the 

site visits. 

10See app. III for a list of the counties we visited. 

Page 45 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I

Scope and Methods

The DCI we used is reproduced in appendix II. Most of the questions 

contained in this instrument incorporate access standards from the 1991 

Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and 

Facilities,

11 the American National Standards Institute’s (ANSI) Standard 

A117.1-1998: Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities,12 and the ADA 

Guide for Small Towns from the Department of Justice (DOJ).

13 In 

addition, some of the questions in our instrument were based upon 

questions in an earlier access survey by the Federal Election Commission 

(FEC),14 and upon guidelines published by the National Task Force on 

Accessible Elections.

15 

All DCI questions were carefully reviewed by GAO methodologists to 

ensure the questions would result in the collection of reliable and accurate 

data. We then provided copies of a draft version of our DCI to 

representatives of the Election Center, the National Organization on 

Disability, and the Task Force on Accessible Elections for their review and 

comments, but did not receive comments from these organizations. We 

also provided the Access Board with a copy of our draft instrument and 

they provided comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. Finally, 

to ensure that the instrument could be used effectively in the field and 

completed in a reasonable amount of time by the teams, we pretested the 

DCI twice—during the June 27, 2000, Special Election and the September 

12, 2000, Primary Election—both in the District of Columbia. 

11The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (otherwise known as the 

Access Board) is responsible for developing access guidelines for the design, construction, 

and alteration of buildings and facilities subject to the ADA. Although new amendments to 

the guidelines were proposed in 1998, they had not been approved and added to the 

standards enforceable by the Department of Justice by Nov. 7, 2000. 

12The ANSI’s Standard A117.1-1998 was created to allow a person with a physical disability 

to independently get to, enter, and use a site, facility, building, or element. 

13U.S. Department of Justice, ADA Guide for Small Towns, Civil Rights Division, Disability 

Rights Section (Apr. 2000). 

14Federal Election Commission, Polling Place Accessibility Survey Form, Polling Place 

Accessibility in the 1992 General Election. 

15The guidebook, Voting: A Constitutional Right for All Citizens, contains guidelines for 

making polling places and voting equipment accessible for people with disabilities. It was 

published in 1999 by the National Task Force on Accessible Elections, initiated by the 

Election Center. The guidebook was based on a previous document originally published in 

1986 by the National Organization on Disability and updated in 1987 by the National Easter 

Seal Society. 

Page 46 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I

Scope and Methods

Analysis of Election 

Day Data 

In analyzing the data collected on Election Day, we first grouped the types 

of impediments that could be encountered at a polling place into those that 

might be encountered at each of four locations—the parking area, the route 

from the parking area to the building, the building entrance, and the route 

from the entrance to the voting room. Therefore, the percentage of polling 

places cited as having one or more potential impediments was based on 

whether or not a polling place was found to have at least one potential 

impediment in any of the four locations we examined and does not include 

potential impediments associated with the voting booth or equipment, 

which we report on separately. 

While features of the voting booth or equipment did not enter into our 

summary measure of whether a polling place had a potential impediment, 

we did look for potential impediments inside the voting room. We took 

measurements of the voting booth or table used by people with disabilities 

to determine whether equipment was within reach for wheelchair users 

and whether wheelchairs could fit inside the booth or under the table. We 

checked to see if sample ballots and voting instructions were provided in 

18-point type, and if magnifying devices were available. Further, we 

checked whether Braille ballots and sleeves, audiotaped ballots, and other 

accommodations for blind voters were available. We also briefly 

interviewed the poll worker in charge at almost all of the polling places to 

find out whether curbside voting was available and how the poll workers 

would handle voter requests for assistance from a friend or an election 

official.16 

Comparison of NonElection Day Sample With 

Election Day Sample 

In the 15 counties that did not give us access to their polling places on 

Election Day, we were able to complete only those portions of our DCI that 

referred to the outside of the building. That is, we observed the parking 

area and the route from the parking area to the building. However, because 

we were not at the polling places on Election Day itself, we could not 

observe temporary features that might have been provided to facilitate the 

building’s use as a polling place, such as temporary signs or ramps. More 

important, we could not determine what accommodations, if any, were 

available to voters with disabilities if they were to encounter features that 

impeded their access to the polling place on Election Day itself. For this 

reason, although we visited 89 polling places in these counties either before 

16We were unable to conduct this interview in 2.5 percent of polling places. 

Page 47 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I

Scope and Methods

or after Election Day, we excluded the data from these visits from our 

analysis. We reweighted our final sample to account for the exclusion of 

these polling places so that our findings regarding various polling place 

features can still be considered representative of all polling places in the 

contiguous United States. 

When we compare the limited data from the non-Election Day visits with 

those from the Election Day visits, it is clear that the exclusion of the nonElection Day data does not increase the percentage of polling places with a 

potential impediment in the parking area or on the route from the parking 

area to the building. The percentage of polling places in the non-Election 

Day sample with one or more potential impediments in these areas is 

higher than the percentage in the Election Day sample. While it is 

impossible to compare the entire route from parking to inside the building 

across the two sets of data, we found nothing to suggest that the nonElection Day sites would have had significantly fewer impediments than 

those found at the Election Day sites. Table 6 presents the percentage of 

polling places visited on Election Day and not on Election Day that had 

potential impediments either in the parking area or on the route to the 

building’s entrance. 

Table 6: Comparison of Election Day and Non-Election Day Data: Percentage of 

Polling Places With Potential Impediments in Two Areas 

Route from parking area to 

Parking area building entrance 

Election Day sites 33% 57% 

Non-Election Day sites 38% 73% 

Note: Sampling errors for the Election Day sites range from 7 to 8 percentage points at the 95-percent 

confidence level. Sampling errors for the Non-Election Day sites range from 15 to 20 percentage 

points at the 95-percent confidence level. 

Source: GAO analysis of polling place data. 

Sampling Errors	 All sample surveys are subject to sampling error, which is the extent to 

which the survey results differ from what would have been obtained if the 

whole universe had been observed. Measures of sampling error are defined 

by two elements—the width of the confidence interval around the estimate 

(sometimes called precision of the estimate) and the confidence level at 

which the interval is computed. The confidence interval refers to the fact 

that estimates actually encompass a range of possible values, not just a 

Page 48 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I

Scope and Methods

single point. This interval is often expressed as a point estimate, plus or 

minus some value (the precision level). For example, a point estimate of 75 

percent plus or minus 5 percentage points means that the true population 

value is estimated to lie between 70 percent and 80 percent, at some 

specified level of confidence. 

The confidence level of the estimate is a measure of the certainty that the 

true value lies within the range of the confidence interval. We calculated 

the sampling error for each statistical estimate in this report at the 95-

percent confidence level and present this information throughout the 

report. 

Page 49 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II 

Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection 

Instrument 

DCI to Assess Polling Place Accessibility 

Background Information

1. Date ________________, 2000


�� Time of Visit: ________________to________________


�� Name of Observer(s) ______________________________________________


______________________________________________

�� Name of HQ’s Team 

or Region ________________________________________ 

�� Is this location still a polling place? (CHECK ONE.) 

1. [ ] Not an “Election Day” visit (CONTINUE WITH DCI.) 

2. [ ] Yes 

3. [ ] No (STOP HERE AND GO TO THE NEXT POLLING PLACE!)

�� What is the building in which the polling place is located normally used as? (CHECK ONE.) 

1. [ ] House of worship (e.g., church, parish, synagogue, mosque, temple) 

2. [ ] School 

3. [ ] Library 

4. [ ] Courthouse 

5. [ ] Police or fire station 

6. [ ] Recreational or community center 

7. [ ] City Hall 

8. [ ] Private home 

9.	 [ ] Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.) 

____________________________________________________________ 

Page 50 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II

Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection

Instrument

Parking

�� Is there temporary or permanent on or off street parking associated with this polling site that 

is specifically designated for persons with disabilities? (CHECK ONE.) 

1. [ ] Yes, designated parking that is permanent only 

2. [ ] Yes, designated parking that is temporary only 

3. [ ] Yes, both temporary and permanent designated parking 

4.	 [ ] No designated parking for persons with disabilities (IF CHECKED, GO TO ITEM 

10.) 

5. [ ] No parking for any voters (IF CHECKED, GO TO ITEM 10.) 

�� Is the parking specifically designated for persons with disabilities on or off street parking, or 

is there both? (CHECK ONE.) 

1. [ ] On street only 

2. [ ] Off street only 

3. [ ] Both on and off street parking 

�� If the parking area specifically designated for persons with disabilities was not easily visible 

from the front of the polling place, was there a temporary or permanent sign directing voters 

to that parking area? (CHECK ONE.) 

1. [ ] Yes, a temporary sign only 

2. [ ] Yes, a permanent sign only


3. [ ] Yes, both temporary and permanent signs


4. [ ] No, there was no sign


5. [ ] Not applicable, parking area was easily visible


Page 51 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II

Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection

Instrument

Route from Leaving the Car to the Accessible Entrance of the Building

��� What impediments to wheelchair use, if any, are there along the path from the point at which 

persons with disabilities leave their car to the “accessible” entrance (or main entrance if no 

accessible entrance designated) of the building? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.) 

Parking Area or Street in Front of Building 

�� [ ] Unpaved or poor surface, e.g. abrupt changes over 1⁄4 inch 

�� [ ] One or more unramped or uncut curbs 

�� [ ] One or more ramped or cut curbs that are less than 36 inches wide 

�� [ ]	 Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.) 

____________________________________________________________ 

Path from Parking Area or Street in Front of Building to the Entrance of the Building 

�� [ ]	 Overly narrow (less than 36 inches wide, but can go down to 32 inches wide for a 

distance of two feet) sidewalk/pathway along the path 

�� [ ] For at least part of the way there is no sidewalk/pathway 

�� [ ] Sidewalk/pathway has at least one slope that is steeper than 1:12 

�� [ ] Leaves, snow, or litter creating a hazard or impediment 

�� [ ] Steps required to reach building entrance (i.e., no ramps or lifts available) 

a. [ ]Steps have handrails that extend at least one foot beyond the landing 

b. [ ]Steps have handrails that extend less than one foot beyond the landing 

c. [ ]Steps have no handrails 

��� [ ] Ramps along main or accessible path have a slope steeper than 1:12 

��� [ ]	 Ramps that measure more than 6 inches from the ground to their highest point and 

lack 2 handrails (i.e. one on each side) 

��� [ ]	 Ramps that are less than 36 inches wide (can go down to 32 inches wide for a 

distance of two feet) 

��� [ ] Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.) 

____________________________________________________________ 

��� [ ] No impediments

Page 52 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II

Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection

Instrument

��� If there was a special path for persons with disabilities that was different from the path that 

non-disabled persons would generally use, was there a temporary or permanent sign(s) 

clearly indicating that route? (CHECK ONE.) 

1. [ ] Yes, a temporary sign only 

2. [ ] Yes, a permanent sign only


�� [ ] Yes, both a temporary and a permanent sign


4. [ ] No, there was no sign clearly indicating that route


�� [ ] Not applicable, there was no special path


Entrances to the Building

��� What, if any, impediments to wheelchair use are presented by the entrance(s) to the building 

to which the “accessible” path (or main path if no “accessible” path designated) from the 

parking area leads? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.) 

1. [ ] Doorway thresholds that exceed 1⁄2 inch in height 

2. [ ] Single door openings that are less than 32 inches wide 

3. [ ] Double door openings that are less than 32 inches wide, including situations in which 

one of the doors cannot be opened 

4.	 [ ] Closed doors that would be difficult for a person in a wheelchair to open 

(PLEASE DESCRIBE.) 

____________________________________________________________ 

5.	 [ ] Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.) 

____________________________________________________________ 

6. [ ] No impediments

��� Were you allowed into the polling place? (CHECK ONE.) 

1. [ ] Yes 

2. [ ] No (STOP HERE AND GO TO THE NEXT POLLING PLACE!)

Page 53 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II

Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection

Instrument

Route to Voting Room from Inside the Building

��� Once you have entered the building, what impediments, if any, are there to wheelchair use 

along the path to the voting room? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.) 

Doorways and Entrances that Present Impediments 

1. [ ] One or more doorway thresholds that exceed 1⁄2 inch in height 

2. [ ] One or more single door openings that are less than 32 inches wide 

3. [ ] One or more double door openings that are less than 32 inches wide, including 

situations in which one of the doors cannot be opened 

4.	 [ ] One or more closed doors that would be difficult for a person in a wheelchair to 

open (PLEASE DESCRIBE.) 

____________________________________________________________ 

5. [ ] Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.) 

____________________________________________________________ 

Steps 

6. [ ] Steps required to gain access to the voting room (i.e., no ramp or lift) 

a. [ ] Steps have handrails that extend at least one foot beyond the landing 

b. [ ] Steps have handrails that extend less than one foot beyond the landing 

c. [ ] Steps have no handrails 

Ramps that Present Impediments 

7. [ ] One or more ramps that have a slope steeper than 1:12 

8.	 [ ] One or more ramps rising more than 6 inches that lack 2 handrails (i.e., one on each 

side) 

9.	 [ ] One or more ramps that are less than 36 inches wide at any point (but can go down 

to 32 inches wide for a distance of two feet) 

10. [ ] Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.) 

____________________________________________________________ 

Page 54 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II

Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection

Instrument

14. (Continued) 

Corridors that Present Impediments 

11. [ ] One or more corridors that do not provide a clearance of at least 36 inches (can go 

down to a clearance of 32 inches for a distance of two feet) 

12. [ ] Other 

__________________________________________________________ 

13. [ ] No impediments

��� If there was a special path to the voting room for persons with disabilities that was different 

from the path that non-disabled persons would generally use, was there a temporary or 

permanent sign(s) clearly indicating that route? (CHECK ONE.) 

1. [ ] Yes, a temporary sign only 

2. [ ] Yes, a permanent sign only


�� [ ] Yes, both a temporary and a permanent sign


4. [ ] No, there was no sign clearly indicating that route


�� [ ] Not applicable, there was no special path


��� Is it necessary for a person in a wheelchair or a blind person to take an elevator to gain 

access to the voting room? (CHECK ONE.) 

1. [ ] No (IF “NO,” GO TO QUESTION 18 ON PAGE 10.) 

2. [ ] Yes 

Page 55 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II

Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection

Instrument

��� What impediments, if any, does the elevator present to blind persons or persons in a 

wheelchair? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.) 

1. [ ] The center of the outside call button is higher than 48 inches from the ground 

or floor 

2. [ ] The elevator opening is less than 36 inches wide 

3. [ ]	 The center of the top inside floor button(s) is higher than 48 inches from the floor 

of the elevator 

4. [ ] The panel surrounding the inside buttons lacked raised lettering or Braille 

5. [ ]	 Outside or inside elevator buttons require a heat sensor to operate, that is, the 

elevator buttons require human touch to operate (PLEASE TRY TO OPERATE BY 

PRESSING BUTTONS WITH A PEN OR SIMILAR OBJECT.) 

6. [ ] The inside car is less than 48” by 48” 

7. [ ] Other 

____________________________________________________________ 

8. [ ] No impediments

Page 56 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II

Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection

Instrument

Voting Room Facilities for Persons with or without Disabilities

��� What kind of voting method do voters without disabilities use? (CHECK ONE.) 

1. [ ] Electronic 

2. [ ] Paper or mark-sense 

3. [ ] Votomatic punch card 

4. [ ] Datavote punch card 

5. [ ] Machine that uses levers to record vote 

6. [ ] Choice or combination of _____________ and _____________ 

7.	 [ ] Other 

____________________________________________________________ 

��� What are the name of the manufacturer and the model number of the voting machines used 

by voters without disabilities? 

Manufacturer____________________________________________________________ 

Model number___________________________________________________________ 

��� Are there one or more voting stations specifically designated for use by persons with 

disabilities? (CHECK ONE.) 

1. [ ] Yes 

2. [ ] No (IF “NO,” GO TO ITEM 24.) 

��� Is a different type of voting method available to persons with disabilities? (CHECK ONE.) 

1. [ ] Yes (DESCRIBE.)___________________________________________ 

2. [ ] No 

��� Are there different kinds of voting machines available to persons with disabilities? (CHECK 

ONE.) 

1. [ ] Yes (DESCRIBE MAKE AND MODEL #.) ______________________________ 

2. [ ] No 

Page 57 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II

Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection

Instrument

��� In your opinion, do the voting stations specifically designated for persons with disabilities 

provide less privacy than, the same privacy as, or more privacy than the voting stations 

designated for non-disabled voters? (CHECK ONE.) 

1. [ ] Less privacy than the voting stations for non-disabled voters 

2. [ ] The same privacy as the voting stations for non-disabled voters 

3. [ ] More privacy than the voting stations for non-disabled voters 

��� Is the station at which a person with a disability would vote configured for voters to stand or 

sit? (CHECK ONE.) 

1. [ ] Stand (IF “STAND,” GO TO ITEM 26 ON THE NEXT PAGE.) 

2. [ ] Sit 

��� If the station at which a person with a disability would vote is configured for seated voting, is 

there clear knee space underneath that is 27 or more inches high, 30 or more inches wide

and 19 or more inches deep? Is the equipment necessary for voting located 44 inches or less 

above the floor? (CHECK ONE FOR EACH.) 

Yes No 

(1) (2) 

1. 27” or more high [ ] [ ] 

2. 30” or more wide [ ] [ ] 

3. 19” or more deep [ ] [ ] 

4.	 Voting equipment 44” or less above the floor [ ] [ ] 

(NOW GO TO ITEM 27.) 

Page 58 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II

Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection

Instrument

��� If the station at which a person with a disability would vote is one in which non-disabled 

voters would usually stand, does the station have any of the impediments listed below? 

(CHECK ONE FOR EACH.) 

Yes No 

(1) (2) 

1. An entryway that is less than 36 inches wide [ ] [ ] 

2. Thresholds that are more than 1⁄2 inch in the entryway [ ] [ ] 

3. For a voter reaching forward to cast a vote, at least some 

of the buttons or levers are less than 15 inches above the floor [ ] [ ] 

4. For a voter reaching forward to cast a vote, at least some 

of the buttons or levers are more than 48 inches above the floor [ ] [ ] 

5. For a voter reaching sideways to cast a vote, at least some of 

the buttons or levers are less than 9 inches above the floor [ ] [ ] 

6. For a voter reaching sideways to cast a vote, at least some of 

the buttons or levers are more than 54 inches above the floor [ ] [ ] 

Page 59 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II

Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection

Instrument

In the DCI used in the field, 

the bolded "18 point" text 

in questions 27, 28, 30 and 

31 appeared in 18-point 

font size, in order that GAO 

staff could compare the 

font size of this text with Aid for Visually Impaired Voters that used in actual voting 

instructions and sample


ballots. ��� Are voting instructions posted that use 18-point or larger type? (CHECK ONE.)


1. [ ] Yes, instructions posted with 18 point type or larger 

2. [ ] No 

��� Are sample ballots posted that use 18-point or larger type? (CHECK ONE.) 

1. [ ] Yes 

2. [ ] No 

Questions for Main Precinct Official

��� Are you able to interview the main precinct official? (CHECK ONE.) 

1. [ ] Yes 

2. [ ] No (STOP HERE AND GO TO THE NEXT POLLING PLACE!)

��� Do you have voting instructions that use 18-point or larger type that are available for voters 

to use? (CHECK ONE.) 

1. [ ] Yes (If so, ask) May I see a set of those instructions? [ ] Instructions Shown 

2. [ ] No 

��� Do you have sample ballots that use 18-point or larger type that are available for voters to 

use? (CHECK ONE.) 

1. [ ] Yes (If so, ask) May I see one of those ballots? [ ] Ballot Shown 

2. [ ] No 

��� Does the polling place have magnifying devices available that visually impaired voters can 

use? (CHECK ONE.) 

1. [ ] Yes (If so, ask) May I see the device (glasses.)? [ ] Device Shown 

2. [ ] No 

Page 60 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II

Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection

Instrument

��� Does the polling place have any special equipment available to enable a blind person to vote? 

(CHECK ONE.) 

1. [ ] Yes 

2. [ ] No (IF “NO,” GO TO ITEM 35.) 

��� May I see the equipment that is available? (CHECK EACH SHOWN.) 

1. [ ] Braille sleeve 

2. [ ] Braille paper ballot 

3. [ ] Braille ballot as part of the voting device 

4. [ ] Audio-taped ballot 

5.	 [ ] Other (SPECIFY.) 

________________________________________________________ 

��� If a blind person wishes to vote, may that person have a friend assist him or her with voting? 

(CHECK ONE.) 

1. [ ] Yes 

2. [ ] No 

��� If a person with a disability other than blindness, wishes to vote may that person have a 

friend assist him or her with voting? (CHECK ONE.) 

1. [ ] Yes 

2. [ ] No 

��� If a blind person asks for help with voting, will an election official assist him or her? (CHECK 

ONE.) 

1. [ ] Yes 

2. [ ] No 

Page 61 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II

Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection

Instrument

��� If a person with a disability, other than blindness, asks for help with voting, will an election 

official assist him or her? (CHECK ONE.) 

1. [ ] Yes 

2. [ ] No 

��� If a person with a disability arrives at the polling place in a car and believes that he or she 

would have difficulty entering or voting at the polling place, what would you do to enable the 

person to vote? (CHECK ALL THAT ARE INDICATED.) 

1.	 [ ] Provide assistance so that the person with a disability could vote in the polling 

place (ASK) What kind of assistance would you provide? (ENTER ANSWER.) 

___________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________ 

2. [ ] Enable the person to vote in his or her automobile by using the same kind of 

voting device as is used in the polling place 

3. [ ] Enable the person to vote in his or her automobile by using a paper ballot 

4. [ ] Other ______________________________________________________________ 

��� (IF YOU CANNOT LOCATE ON OR OFF STREET PARKING DESIGNATED FOR PERSONS 

WITH DISABILITIES THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS POLLING PLACE ASK:) Is there on 

or off street parking associated with this polling site that is specifically designated for 

persons with disabilities that is either temporary or permanent? Would you show it to me? 

(CHECK ONE.) 

1. [ ] Yes [ ] Shown (IF NECESSARY, REVISE ANSWERS TO ITEMS 7-9.) 

2. [ ] No 

��� (IF YOU CANNOT LOCATE AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE FROM LEAVING THE CAR TO THE 

ENTRANCE OF THE VOTING ROOM ASK:) Is there an accessible path from the point at 

which blind persons or persons with disabilities leave their car to the entrance of the 

building? Would you show it to me? (CHECK ONE.) 

1.	 [ ] Yes [ ] Shown (IF NECESSARY, REVISE ANSWERS TO ITEMS 10 AND 

11.) 

2. [ ] No 

Page 62 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II

Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection

Instrument

��� (IF YOU CANNOT LOCATE AN ENTRANCE THAT IS WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE ASK:) Is 

there an entrance to this building that is wheelchair accessible? Would you show it to me? 

(CHECK ONE.) 

1. [ ] Yes [ ] Shown (IF NECESSARY, REVISE ANSWERS TO ITEM 12.) 

2. [ ] No 

��� (IF YOU CANNOT LOCATE AN ACCESSIBLE PATH FROM THE ENTRANCE TO THE 

VOTING ROOM ASK:) Is there a path from the entrance of the building to the voting room 

that is accessible to blind persons and persons with disabilities? Would you show it to me? 

(CHECK ONE.) 

1.	 [ ] Yes [ ] Shown (IF NECESSARY, REVISE ANSWERS TO ITEMS 14 AND 

15.) 

2. [ ] No 

��� Can the voting equipment in the voting stations be lowered? Would you show me how this is 

done? (CHECK ONE.) 

1.	 [ ] Yes [ ] Shown (IF NECESSARY, REVISE ANSWERS TO ITEMS 25 OR 

26.) 

2. [ ] No 

��� I would like to just take a few minutes to review the answers you have given to the interview 

questions. (QUICKLY READ BACK THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO THE INTERVIEW 

QUESTIONS TO CHECK FOR CORRECTNESS AND REVISE ACCORDINGLY.) 

1. [ ] Answers to interview questions reviewed and revised, if necessary. 

��� Additional Notes and Comments

Page 63 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix III 

People and Counties Contacted During Our 

Review 

Table 7: Representatives of Election Offices in 50 States and the District of Columbia 

State Office Name and title 

Alabama Office of Secretary of State Vicki Balogh 

Director of Elections 

Arizona Office of Secretary of State Jessica Funkhouser 

Election Director 

Alaska Division of Elections Janet Kowalski 

Director 

Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners Suzy Stormes 

Director 

California Office of Secretary of State John Mott-Smith, 

Chief of Elections Division 

Colorado Office of Secretary of State Bill Compton 

Director of Elections 

Connecticut Office of Secretary of State Thomas Ferguson 

Director of Elections 

Delaware Department of Elections Tom Cook 

Commissioner of Elections 

District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics	 Alice P. Miller 

Executive Director 

Marvin A. Ford


Chief of Staff 


Tony Bass


Election Operations Manager


Florida Division of Elections L. Clayton Roberts 

Director 

Georgia Elections Division Linda Beazley 

Director 

Hawaii Office of Elections Dwayne Yoshina 

Chief Elections Officer 

Idaho Elections Division Ben Ysursa 

Chief Deputy Secretary of State 

Illinois State Board of Elections Ron Michaelson 

Executive Director 

Indiana Election Commission Spencer Valentine 

Co-Director 

Iowa Office of the Secretary of State	 Bob Galbraith 

Deputy Secretary of State for Elections 

Sandy Steinbach 

Director of Elections 

Kansas Office of the Secretary of State	 Brad Bryant 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Elections 

Page 64 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix III

People and Counties Contacted During Our 

Review

(Continued From Previous Page) 

State Office Name and title 

Kentucky State Board of Elections	 Mary Sue Helm 

Executive Director 

Louisiana Office of the Secretary of State	 Frances Hurst 

Elections/Commissions/Publications Administrator 

Warren Ponder 

Executive Counsel 

Pat Stewart 

Assistant Administrator 

Maine Bureau of Corporations, Elections & Commissions	 Julie Flynn 

Director 

Melissa Packard 

Elections Assistant 

Maryland State Administrative Board of Election Laws Linda Lamone 

Administrator 

Massachusetts Election Division Michelle Tassinari 

Director of Elections 

Michigan Bureau of Elections Bradley S. Wittman 

Director of Information and Voter Registration 

Minnesota Election Division J. Bradley King 

Director 

Mississippi Secretary of State for Elections Leslie Scott 

Assistant 

Missouri Election Division Daniel Hayes 

Senior Election Specialist 

Montana Office of Secretary of State Joe Kerwin 

Deputy for Elections 

Nebraska Office of Secretary of State Neal Erickson 

Assistant Secretary of State 

Nevada Office of Secretary of State Susan Morandi 

Deputy Secretary of State for Elections 

New Hampshire State Election Office Ellen Dube 

Elections Assistant 

New Jersey State Election Office Sharon Young 

Director of Elections Division 

New Mexico State Bureau of Elections Denise Lamb 

Director of Elections 

New York State Board of Elections Thomas R. Wilkey 

Executive Director 

North Carolina State Board of Elections Gary Bartlett 

Executive Director 

North Dakota Office of Secretary of State Lee Ann Oliver 

Elections Specialist 

Page 65 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix III

People and Counties Contacted During Our 

Review

(Continued From Previous Page) 

State Office Name and title 

Ohio Office of Secretary of State Dana Walch 

Director of Elections 

Oklahoma State Elections Board Lance Ward 

Secretary 

Oregon Office of the Secretary of State Scott Tighe 

Operations Manager 

Pennsylvania Bureau of Commissions, Elections, and Legislation	 Dick Filling 

Commissioner of Elections 

Rhode Island State Board of Elections Robert Fontaine 

Executive Director 

South Carolina State Elections Commission Jim F. Hendrix 

Executive Director 

South Dakota State Election Office Chris Nelson 

Election Supervisor 

Tennessee Office of Secretary of State Brook Thompson 

State Coordinator of Elections 

Texas Office of Secretary of State Ann McGeehan 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Elections 

Utah Office of the Lieutenant Governor Amy Naccarato 

Director of Elections 

Vermont Office of Secretary of State Kathy DeWolfe 

Director of Elections & Campaign Finance 

Virginia State Board of Elections Cameron Quinn 

Secretary 

Washington Office of Secretary of State Charlotte Ottavelli 

Elections Assistant 

West Virginia Office of Secretary of State Jan Casto 

Deputy Secretary of State and Director of Elections 

Wisconsin State Elections Board Kevin Kennedy 

Executive Director 

Wyoming Office of Secretary of State Peggy Nighswonger 

Elections Officer 

Page 66 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix III

People and Counties Contacted During Our 

Review

Table 8: Alphabetical Listing of 100 Randomly Selected Counties 

# County State 

Coffee Alabama 

Mobilea Alabama 

Alameda California 

Imperial California 

Los Angeles California 

Monterey California 

Placer California 

San Bernardino California 

San Diego California 

San Mateo California 

Santa Clara California 

Tulare California 

Fairfieldb Connecticut 

Brevard Florida 

Dade Florida 

Duval Florida 

17 Lee Florida 

18 Manatee Florida 

19 Monroe Florida 

20 Pasco Florida 

21 Pinellas Florida 

22 De Kalb Georgia 

23 Forsyth Georgia 

24 Gwinnett Georgia 

25 Richmond Georgia 

26 Cook Illinois 

27 Stephenson Illinois 

28 Marion Indiana 

29 Plymouth Iowa 

30 Worth Iowa 

31 Johnson Kansas 

32 Sedgwick Kansas 

33 Wilson Kansas 

34 Bracken Kentucky 

35 Jefferson Kentucky 

Page 67 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 
Appendix III

People and Counties Contacted During Our 

Review

(Continued From Previous Page) 

# County State 

36 Kenton Kentucky 

Hampshireb Massachusetts 

Norfolkb Massachusetts 

Suffolk Massachusetts 

Berrien Michigan 

Carlton Minnesota 

Morrison Minnesota 

Ramsey Minnesota 

Jackson Mississippi 

New Madrida

 Missouri 

St. Louis City Missouri 

St. Louisa

 Missouri 

Clay Nebraska 

Washoe Nevada 

Bergen New Jersey 

Essex New Jersey 

52 Morris New Jersey 

53 Union New Jersey 

54 Moraa

 New Mexico 

55 San Juana

 New Mexico 

56 Kings New York 

57 Monroe New York 

58 New York New York 

59 Niagara New York 

60 Rockland New York 

61 Saratoga New York 

62 Schenectady New York 

63 Suffolk New York 

64 Guilford North Carolina 

65 Henderson North Carolina 

66 Mecklenburg North Carolina 

67 Auglaizea

 Ohio 

68 Franklina

 Ohio 

69 Starka

 Ohio 

70 Trumbulla

 Ohio 

71 Oklahoma Oklahoma 

72 Pontotoc Oklahoma 

Page 68 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 
Appendix III

People and Counties Contacted During Our 

Review

(Continued From Previous Page) 

# County State 

73 Allegheny Pennsylvania 

74 Bradford Pennsylvania 

75 Bucks Pennsylvania 

76 Dauphin Pennsylvania 

77 Mercer Pennsylvania 

78 Monroea

 Pennsylvania 

79 Philadelphia Pennsylvania 

80 Union Pennsylvania 

81 Orangeburg South Carolina 

82 Putnam Tennessee 

83 Shelby Tennessee 

84 Bexar

a

 Texas 

85 Brazoriaa

 Texas 

86 Dallasa

 Texas 

87 Tarranta

 Texas 

88 Williamsona

 Texas 

89 Davis Utah 

90 Chittendenb Vermont 

91 Arlington Virginia 

92 Wythe Virginia 

93 Benton Washington 

94 Grant Washington 

95 King Washington 

96 Snohomish Washington 

97 Boone West Virginia 

98 Marathon Wisconsin 

99 Oconto Wisconsin 

100 Trempealeau Wisconsin 

a

For these 15 counties, we visited polling places either before or after Election Day. 

b

For these four counties, we spoke with election officials at the subcounty level (such as towns and 

cities) where responsibility for elections lies. 

Election and Other Officials Gary Bartlett

and Representatives of Executive Secretary-Director, State Board of Elections, North Carolina; 

Disability Organizations Cochair, Election Center’s National Task Force on Voting Accessibility; and 

Whom We Contacted

member of National Association of State Election Directors (NASED)

Page 69 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix III

People and Counties Contacted During Our 

Review

David Baquis

Accessibility Specialist, Office of Technical & Information Services, U.S.

Access Board

Penelope Bonsall

Director, Office of Election Administration, FEC

John Y. Brown, III

Secretary of State, Kentucky; and Southern Regional Vice President of the 

National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS)

Pauline Brunelli

Director, Federal Voting Assistance Program, U.S. Department of Defense 

(DOD)

Brad Bryant

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Elections/Legislative matters, 

Kansas; and Midwest Regional representative, NASED

Bryan Casky

Assistant State Election Director, Kansas

David Capozzi

Director, Office of Technical &Information Services, U.S. Access Board;

and member of the Election Center’s National Task Force on Voting

Accessibility

Alfie Charles

Chair, California Internet Task Force

Kristen Cox

Assistant Director, Government Affairs, National Federation of the Blind

Jim Dickson

Vice President, American Association of People with Disabilities and 

Consultant for the National Organization on Disability

Jessica Funkhouser

Election Director, Arizona Secretary of State’s office; and member of

NASED

Page 70 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix III

People and Counties Contacted During Our 

Review

James Gashel

Director of Government Affairs, National Federation of the Blind

Tom Goodman

Director of Public Affairs, National Association of Counties (NACO)

Brian Hancock

Election Research Specialist, Office of Election Administration, FEC

Ernest Hawkins

Registrar of Voters, Sacramento County; former President, National

Association of County Recorders and Clerks (NACRC); Cochair of NACO 

National Commission on Election Standards and Reform; and member of

the FEC Election Administration Advisory Panel—2001

J. Patrick Kelly

County Clerk and Recorder, El Paso County; Cochair of NACRC Election 

Interest Group; and member, NACO National Commission on Election 

Standards and Reform

Robert Kengle

Deputy Chief, Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, DOJ

William C. Kimberling

Deputy Director, Office of Election Administration, FEC

Andrew Lelling

Counsel to Assistant Attorney General, Senior Counsel Voting Reform, DOJ

R. Doug Lewis

Executive Director, Election Center; and member of the Election Center’s 

National Task Force on Voting Accessibility and NACO National 

Commission on Election Standards and Reform

Marsha Mazz

Technical Assistance Coordinator and Accessibility Specialist, Office of

Technical and Information Services, U.S. Access Board

Ann McGeehan

Texas State Elections Director; NASED President; and member of the 

Election Center’s National Task Force on Voting Accessibility

Page 71 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix III

People and Counties Contacted During Our 

Review

Gary McIntosh

Former Director of Elections, Washington and former NASED President

Michelle Mrozkowski

Director, Information and Education, North Carolina State Board of

Elections

Amy Naccarato

Director of Elections, Utah; and NASED West Regional Representative

Lee Page

Associate Advocacy Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America; and Cochair,

Election Center’s National Task Force on Voting Accessibility

Carol Paquette

Program Analyst, Federal Voting Assistance Program, DOD

Cathy Pearsall-Stipek

Certified Public Official-Auditor, Pierce County, Washington; President,

NACRC; member of NACO National Commission on Election Standards 

and Reform

Jim Pecht

Accessibility Specialist, Office of Technical and Information Services, U.S. 

Access Board

Sharon Priest

Secretary of State, Arkansas; and President, NASS

Leslie Reynolds

Executive Director, NASS

Joseph D. Rich

Acting Chief, Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, DOJ

Mark Richert

Government Relations Representative, American Foundation for the Blind; 

and member of the Election Center’s National Task Force on Voting

Accessibility

David Scott

Policy Analyst, The Council of State Governments; and NASED member

Page 72 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
DOD

Appendix III

People and Counties Contacted During Our 

Review

Susie Stormes

Director, Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners; and NASED 

member

Christopher M. Thomas

Director, Bureau of Elections, Michigan; and NASED member

Brook Thompson

Coordinator of Elections, Tennessee; and NASED President-Elect

Scott Tighe

Operations Manager, Secretary of State, Oregon; and member of the 

Election Center’s National Task Force on Voting Accessibility

Rebecca Wertz

Deputy Chief, Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, DOJ

Terrence Williams

Information Systems and Services, Federal Voting Assistance Program, 

John L. Wodatch

Chief, Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, DOJ

Page 73 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV

State Provisions Concerning Voting 

Accessibility

Table 9: State Provisions Concerning Polling Place Accessibility, Accommodation of 

Voting Booth Areas and Equipment, and Aids for Visually Impaired Voters 

Polling place accessibility 

All polling State has Inspections of Reporting on 

places must/ 

should be 

accessiblea 

polling place 

accessibility 

standards 

polling place 

accessibility 

required 

polling place 

accessibility 

State required

Alabama Policy Policy * * 

Alaska Policy Policy Policy * 

Arizona Policy (n) Policy Policy * 

Arkansas Law (n) Policy Law Law 

California Law Policy Policy Policy 

Colorado *

b Law * * 

Connecticut Law Law Law Policy 

Delaware Law * * * 

District of Policy Policy * * 

Columbia 

Florida Law Law * * 

Georgia Law (n) Law Law Law 

Hawaii * Policy * * 

Idaho Law Law * * 

Illinois Law Law Law * 

Indiana Law Policy * Policy 

Iowa Policy Policy Policy * 

Kansas Law Law Law * 

Kentucky Law (n) Policy Policy Policy 

Louisiana Law Law Law Law 

Maine Law (n) Law * * 

Maryland Law Law Law Policy 

Massachusetts Lawc Law Law Policy 

Michigan Law (n) Policy Policy Policy 

Minnesota Law Law * * 

Mississippi * * * * 

Missouri *

e * * * 

Montana Law Law Law Law 

Nebraska Law (n) Law * * 

Nevada Law (n) * Policy Policy 

New Hampshire Law (n) Law * * 

New Jersey Law Law Law Law 

Page 74 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV

State Provisions Concerning Voting

Accessibility

Voting booth areas and equipment Aids for visually impaired voters 

Voting areas must/ 

should accommodate 

wheelchairs 

Voting systems must/ 

should accommodate 

individuals with 

disabilities 

Braille ballot or 

methods of voting 

must/may be provided 

Ballots with larger type 

must/may be provided 

Magnifying instruments 

must/may be provided 

* * * * Policy 

Policy * * * Policy 

Policy Policy * * * 

Policy Law * Policy Policy 

Policy Policy * * Policy 

* * * * * 

Law Law * * Policy 

* * * * * 

Policy Policy * * Policy 

* * * * * 

Law s) * ( * * * 

Policy Policy * * Policy 

Policy Policy * * * 

* Law * * Law s) (

* * * * Policy 

Law * * * * 

* * * * * 

Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy 

Law Policy * * * 

* * * * Law 

Policy Law * * * 

Law Law * * * 

Policy Law * * Policy 

Law *

d * * * 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

Law * * * * 

Law * * * * 

Law Law * Law (s) * 

Law * * * * 

* * * * * 

Page 75 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV

State Provisions Concerning Voting

Accessibility

Polling place accessibility 

All polling State has Inspections of Reporting on 

places must/ 

should be 

accessiblea 

polling place 

accessibility 

standards 

polling place 

accessibility 

required 

polling place 

accessibility 

State required

New Mexico Lawf (n) Policy Law * 

New York Law Law * Law 

North Carolina Policy Policy Policy Policy 

North Dakota Law (n) Policy Policy * 

Ohio Law Law Law Policy 

Oklahoma Law (n) Policy Policy Law 

Oregong Law (s) Law Law Law 

Pennsylvania * * * * 

Rhode Island Law Law Policy * 

South Carolina Lawi s) * ( * * 

South akota * D * * * 

Tennessee Law Policy * * 

Texas Law (n) Law Policy * 

Utah * * * * 

Vermont Law (s) Law Law Law 

Virginia Law Policy Policy * 

Washington Law Law Law Law 

West Virginia Policy Policy * * 

Wisconsin Lawj Policy Policy * 

Wyoming * * * * 

Page 76 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV

State Provisions Concerning Voting

Accessibility

Voting booth areas and equipment Aids for visually impaired voters 

Voting areas must/ 

should accommodate 

wheelchairs 

Voting systems must/ 

should accommodate 

individuals with 

disabilities 

Braille ballot or 

methods of voting 

must/may be provided 

Ballots with larger type 

must/may be provided 

Magnifying instruments 

must/may be provided 

Law Law * * Law (s) 

Law Law * * * 

Policy Policy Policy * Policy 

Policy Policy * * Policy 

* Law s) * ( * * 

Policy Policy * * Law 

Law * *

h * Law s) (

* * * * * 

* Law Law * * 

* * * * Policy 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

Law Law Law (s) Law (s) * 

Law * * * * 

Law s) ( Law Law s) ( * Law s) (

Policy Policy Policy * Policy 

Law * * * Law s) (

Policy * * * * 

Policy * * * Policy 

* * * * * 

Notes: This analysis does not include provisions related to emergencies. Law = required by law. 

Policy = required or recommended in written state policy or other guidelines. * = no provision in law or 

policy. (s) = suggested, recommended, or otherwise allowed by law, but not required. (n) = no 

exceptions. 

a

All polling places must/should be accessible: State provisions may allow exceptions if no accessible 

polling places are available. 

b

Colorado: At least one polling place within each political subdivision must be accessible. 

c

Massachusetts: A state election official indicated that it is the policy of the Secretary of State not to 

grant exceptions to accessibility requirements and, to date, no exemptions have been granted. 

d

Minnesota: Recent legislation authorizes the licensing of touch-sensitive electronic voting systems for 

experimental use at an election before approval for general use, including at least one voting system 

permitting blind or visually impaired individuals to vote independently and privately. The extent of 

experimental use will be determined by the Secretary of State. 

e

Missouri: Each local election authority may designate one common site as an Election Day polling 

place for accessibility to the handicapped and elderly. 

f

New Mexico: One polling place in each precinct must be accessible. 

Page 77 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV

State Provisions Concerning Voting

Accessibility

g

Oregon: This is a unique state in that all elections held on the date of the biennial primaries and 

general elections are generally conducted by mail balloting. While vote-by-mail is the normal practice 

for federal elections, some polling booths are required and the responses shown for Oregon generally 

reflect traditional voting at a polling place. 

h

Oregon: Public notice must be made of voting aids available. 

i

South Carolina: Each county election commission (1) is encouraged to make every polling place 

barrier free and (2) shall provide at least one polling place in the county free of architectural barriers for 

voters with disabilities. 

j

Wisconsin: A state election official informed us that they have never implemented the statutory 

authority to exempt polling places from accessibility requirements. 

Source: GAO analysis of state statutes, regulations, and other written provisions that were identified 

and obtained by GAO, or were provided by state election officials as of July 2001. State policies or 

practices that are unwritten, or for which supporting documentation was not provided as of July 2001, 

were not included in this analysis. Election officials in each state reviewed our analysis and provided 

comments and corrections, which we incorporated where appropriate. 

Page 78 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV

State Provisions Concerning Voting

Accessibility

Page 79 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV

State Provisions Concerning Voting

Accessibility

Table 10: State Provisions Concerning Alternative Voting Methods or Accommodations On or Before Election Day 

Ballot taken to voters’ residences 

State 

Notify voters of 

inaccessible polling 

places 

Curbside voting 

available on 

Election Day 

Alternative and 


accessible polling


places available on


Election Day On Election Day Before Election Day


Alabama * * * * * 

Alaska * Law Law Law Law 

Arizona Policy Policy Policy Law Law 

Arkansas * Law (p) * Law (p) Law (p) 

California Law Law Law * * 

Colorado Law Law Law * Lawf 

Connecticut Policy * Policy Law (p) Lawg (p) 

Delaware Law * Law * * 

District of Columbia * Policy Law * * 

Florida * * * * Lawh 

Georgia * * * * * 

Hawaii * Law * * * 

Idaho * Law Policy * * 

Illinois Law Law Law * * 

Indiana * * Law * Law 

Iowa Policy Law * Lawj Lawj 

Kansas * Law * * * 

Kentucky * Law (p) * Law (p) Law (p) 

Louisiana Lawk Policy (p) Law * Lawl 

Maine * Law * * Lawm 

Maryland Policy * Law * * 

Massachusetts * Law (p) * * Lawn 

Michigan Policy * Policy Law Law 

Minnesota * Law * * Lawo 

Mississippi * Policy * Law (p) Law (p) 

Missouri * Law Law * Law 

Montana Law Law Law * * 

Nebraska * Law * * * 

Nevada * Law * Lawp * 

Page 80 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV

State Provisions Concerning Voting

Accessibility

Absentee votinga 

Ballot due before Election Day Ballot due on Election Day 

Permanent 

Mailed ballot absentee ballot 

may be received available to Other early 

after Election voters with voting 

In personb By mail In personb By mail Dayc disabilities provisions 

* * Law Lawd * * *

e 

* * Law * (d) Law Law Law 

* * Law Law * * Law (q) 

Law * * Law (d) * * Law (q) 

* * Law Law * Law (r) Law (q) 

* * Law Law d) * ( * Law q) (

Law * * Law (d) * * * 

Law Law * * * * * 

* * Law * Law * Law 

* * Law Law d) * ( * Lawi 

* * Law Law d) * ( * Law q) (

* * Law Law * * Law 

* * Law Law * * Law q) (

* * Law Law d) * ( * Law q) (

* * Law Law d) * ( * Law 

* * Law * Law * Law (q) 

* * Law Law (d) * Law (r) Law 

* * * Law * * * 

Law Law * * * Law (r) Law (q) 

* * Law Law d) * ( * Law 

* * Law * Law * * 

* * Law Law (d) * Law (r) Law 

* * Law Law d) * ( * Law q) (

Law * * Law (d) * Law Law (q) 

Law Law * * * Law (r) Law 

Law * * Law * Law r) Law (

* * Policy Policy * * Law 

* * Law *(d) Law * Law 

* * Law Law d) * ( * Law 

Page 81 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV

State Provisions Concerning Voting

Accessibility

Ballot taken to voters’ residences 

State 

Notify voters of 

inaccessible polling 

places 

Curbside voting 

available on 

Election Day 

Alternative and 


accessible polling


places available on


Election Day On Election Day Before Election Day


New ampshire * H * * * * 

New Jersey Law * Law * * 

New exico * M * * * * 

New York Law * Law * Lawq 

North Carolina * Law Law * * 

North akota * D * * * * 

Ohio * Law * Law Law 

Oklahoma * Lawr Law * Laws 

Oregont Law Law Law Lawu Lawu 

Pennsylvania * * * * * 

Rhode Island Law Laww Law * Lawx 

South Carolina Policy Law Law * * 

South akota * D * * * * 

Tennessee Law * Law * * 

Texas * Law *

z Law (p) Law (p) 

Utah * * * * * 

Vermont * Law Law Law Law 

Virginia * Law * * * 

Washington Law * Law * * 

West Virginia * Lawaa Law Lawbb Lawbb 

Wisconsin Policy Law Law * Lawcc 

Wyoming * * * * * 

Page 82 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV

State Provisions Concerning Voting

Accessibility

Absentee votinga 

Ballot due before Election Day Ballot due on Election Day 

Permanent 

Mailed ballot absentee ballot 

may be received available to Other early 

after Election voters with voting 

In personb By mail In personb By mail Dayc disabilities provisions 

Policy * * Law * * * 

* * Law Law d) ( * Law * 

Law * * Law * * Law 

* * Law * Law Law (r) * 

Law Law(d) * * * * Law 

Law * * * Law * Law 

* * Law Law d) * ( * Law q) (

Law * * Law * * Law q) (

* * Law Law * Law Law 

Lawv Lawv * * * * * 

* * * Law * Lawy (r) * 

* * Law Law * * Policy 

* * Law Law d) * ( * Law 

Law * * Law * Law Law q) (

Law * * Law * * Law q) (

* * Law * Law Law Law 

* * Law Law * * Law 

* * Policy Policy * * Law 

* * Law * Law Law * 

Law * * * Law Law (r) Law (q) 

* * Law Law * Law (r) Law 

* * Law Law * * * 

Notes: This analysis does not include provisions relating to emergencies. Law = provided by law. 

Policy = provided by policy documents. * = no provision. (p) = prohibited by law. (r) = law includes 

restrictions. (q) = law or policy requires accessibility. (d) = law also permits ballot to be delivered by a 

personal representative. Thirteen states—Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, 

Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Texas—require all 

polling places to be accessible. 

a

Absentee voting: Provisions for overseas or military voters are not included in this analysis. 

b

In-person absentee voting: May include provisions for either voting in person or personal delivery of 

ballot or both; we use the latest date if they are different. 

c

Mailed ballots may be received after Election Day: Most of these states require ballots to be 

postmarked on or before Election Day. 

d

Alabama: Must be postmarked by the day prior to Election Day and received by Election Day. 

Page 83 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV

State Provisions Concerning Voting

Accessibility

e

Alabama: State statute permits early voting on Saturday 10 days prior to Election Day only for voters 

who will be absent on Election Day, and does not address early voting by voters with disabilities who 

will be present in the county on Election Day. 

f

Colorado: When more than five absentee ballots are to be sent to the same group residential facility— 

nursing home, senior citizen housing facility, etc.—the statute authorizes county clerk employees to 

deliver and return the absentee ballots. However, the statute is silent as to when the visits to the 

nursing homes can occur. 

g

Connecticut: Ballots cannot be hand-delivered to the voter’s home. However, if 20 or more patients in 

a nursing home, residential care home, or VA health-care facility wish to vote, registrars of voters may 

supervise absentee voting and early voting at the homes. Absentee balloting at the homes must be no 

later than the last business day before the election. 

h

Florida: The statute permits “supervised” voting at a certain time and date in assisted living facilities 

and nursing homes. The statute is silent as to when the voting must occur. 

i

Florida: Effective January 1, 2002, any qualified and registered voter may pick up and vote an 

absentee ballot in person before Election Day at the supervisor of elections’ office. 

j

Iowa: The county auditor must send a bipartisan team to deliver an absentee ballot to any resident or 

patient of a hospital or nursing home who requests a ballot. 

k

Louisiana: Notification requirement applies only to absentee voting in person at registrar’s office. 

l

Louisiana: On a fixed day, election officials will go to nursing homes so voters can cast their votes. 

mMaine: A state election official interprets the statute, permitting absentee voting in the presence of the 

clerk, to permit the clerk to take the absentee ballot to a voter’s home. Another statute establishes 

early voting at nursing homes. 

n

Massachusetts: Local election officials may conduct supervised absentee voting at a designated 

health care facility before Election Day. 

o

Minnesota: Permits voting by people with disabilities at nursing homes or health-care residences 

(early absentee voting in front of two election judges who come to the facility). 

p

Nevada: County clerk shall establish at least one polling place for a precinct in any residential 

development exclusively for elderly persons if more than 100 of the residents of the development are 

registered to vote, and adequate area is available and the development owner consents to the 

establishment of the polling place. 

q

New York: Permits people with disabilities to vote in their nursing home if there are at least five 

residents with disabilities on site. 

r

Oklahoma: Curbside voting is not available to voters whose sole impairment is blindness or other type 

of visual impairment. 

s

Oklahoma: Voters confined to nursing homes can vote there by written ballot, which is delivered and 

collected by the state. 

t

Oregon: This is a unique state in that all elections held on the date of the biennial primaries and 

general elections are generally conducted by mail balloting. While vote-by-mail is the normal practice 

for federal elections, some polling booths are required and the responses shown for Oregon generally 

reflect traditional voting at a polling place. 

u

Oregon: Any voter with disabilities, upon request, shall receive assistance of two persons of different 

parties provided by the clerk. Also, a voter with a physical disability may request assistance; the 

location is negotiable, including home, the elections office, drop site locations, or community service 

center, depending on the voter’s need. 

v

Pennsylvania: A ballot received after 5 p.m. on the Friday before the election but before the closing of 

the polls on Election Day is valid only for presidential and vice-presidential votes. 

wRhode Island: Curbside voting is permitted if there is no alternative accessible location within the city 

or town. 

x

Rhode Island: The statute permits election officials to come to a nursing home or hospital to deliver 

ballots and supervise the casting of votes and assist where necessary. Ballots are then mailed. 

Page 84 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV

State Provisions Concerning Voting

Accessibility

y

Rhode Island: Individuals permanently incapacitated may be put on a list to automatically receive 

absentee ballot applications for 5 years. 

z

Texas: State law requires that all polling places be accessible without exception. 

aaWest Virginia: A state official informed us that curbside voting is available only if a polling place is not 

accessible. 

bbWest Virginia: Nursing home residents may qualify for emergency absentee voting. Election officials 

may deliver an application and ballot to nursing home resident voters no earlier than the 7th day 

preceding the election and no later than noon on Election Day, await their completion, and return the 

completed application and ballot to the circuit clerk prior to the close of polls on Election Day. 

ccWisconsin: Residents of nursing homes, retirement homes, and certain community-based facilities 

may vote absentee. Two special voting deputies will visit the home or qualified community-based 

residential facility at a prearranged day and time (but no later than 5 p.m. on the Monday preceding the 

election) for the purpose of supervising absentee voting. 

Source: GAO analysis of state statutes, regulations, and other written provisions that were identified 

and obtained by GAO or were provided by state election officials as of July 2001. State policies or 

practices that are unwritten, or for which supporting documentation was not provided as of July 2001, 

were not included in this analysis. Election officials in each state reviewed our analysis and provided 

comments and corrections, which we incorporated where appropriate. 

Page 85 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix V 

Selected Potential Impediments by Location 

Area 

Location area and potential impediment 

Percentage of all polling places with 

impediments in the specified 

location area 

Parking area 33% 

No parking designated for people with 32% 

disabilities 

No parking for any voters 1% 

Route from parking area to building entrance 57% 

Unpaved or poor surface 23% 

Ramps with slopes greater than 1:12 21% 

Sidewalk slope steeper than 1:12 20% 

Unramped or uncut curb(s) 8% 

No sidewalk or pathway for part of the way 8% 

Ramps that measure more than 6 inches from 6%


the ground to their highest point and lack two


handrails


Steps have no handrails 5% 

Entrance to the building 59% 

Door thresholds greater than 1⁄2-inch in height 37% 

Closed doors that would be difficult for a 26% 

person in a wheelchair to open 

Single-door openings less than 32 inches 10% 

wide 

Double-door openings less than 32 inches 5% 

wide 

Route from inside of the building to the voting 14% 

room 

Single-door openings less than 32 inches 5% 

wide 

Closed doors that would be difficult for a 3% 

person in a wheelchair to open 

Notes: Potential impediments listed are those that occurred with the greatest frequency. Sampling 

errors of the listed potential impediments range from 2 to 8 percentage points at the 95-percent 

confidence level. 

Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on Nov. 7, 2000. 

Page 86 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix VI 

Issues and Challenges Related to Voting 

Accommodations and Alternatives 

Accommodations and Advantages and disadvantages


alternatives for voters Challenges for election officials


Curbside voting: Allow voters who Advantage • Provide and train staff at each polling place to


cannot enter the polling place to • Voters with disabilities may be able to vote ensure that voters who cannot enter the building are


vote at the curbside of their outside their neighborhood polling places on able to vote


neighborhood polling place Election Day • May require changing laws that prohibit using this


accommodation 

Disadvantages—some voters with disabilities 

• may see this accommodation as unequal 

treatment and may prefer to vote as others in 

the polling room 

• may not want to draw special attention and 

feel that this represents a loss of dignity or 

independence 

• may not be able to cast a secret ballot 

• may have difficulty voting if a poll worker is 

unavailable to provide assistance or weather 

is inclement 

Reassignment: Allow voters to Advantage • Identify polling places that may prevent access for 


use another polling place on • Voters with disabilities have an accessible some voters and communicate this issue to them so


Election Day when their polling place for voting on Election Day that they can arrange reassignment


neighborhood polling place is not • Identify an accessible polling place


accessible Disadvantages—voters with disabilities may • Provide appropriate ballots at reassigned polling


need to make an extra effort to 

• Become aware of accessibility problems and 

arrange reassignment with the election office 

• Travel farther to vote than other voters in 

their precinct 

place 

• Train poll workers to handle a reassigned voter 

Superprecincts: Locate the Advantages • Find an accessible facility that has sufficient space


polling place for more than one • Voters with disabilities have an accessible for voting and parking and will not require excessive 


precinct within the same building polling place for voting on Election Day travel for most voters


on Election Day • Voters with disabilities are not required to 


travel farther than others 

Disadvantage 

• Some voters may be required to travel 

outside of their neighborhood to vote 

Page 87 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix VI

Issues and Challenges Related to Voting

Accommodations and Alternatives

(Continued From Previous Page) 

Accommodations and Advantages and disadvantages


alternatives for voters Challenges for election officials


Early voting: Allow voters to use 

one or more central sites 

sometimes for a week or more, 

just before Election Day 

Advantages 

• Voters are provided with a more flexible time 

period for voting 

• Some voters with disabilities may find that 

these sites offer better access and voting 

equipment that allow them to vote 

independently 

Disadvantages 

• Voters with disabilities may prefer that the 

traditional polling places used on Election 

Day be fully accessible 

• Voters would not have access to latebreaking information on candidates and 

ballot measures prior to casting their ballot 

• Establish sites and provide staff and resources, 

such as voting equipment and different ballot types 

• Mitigate any increased opportunity for fraudulent 

voting 

Less-restrictive absentee voting: 

Allow less-restrictive use of 

absentee ballots, such as not 

requiring a reason to use 

temporary absentee ballots or 

allowing permanent absentee 

ballots 

Advantages 

• Voters have the convenience of being able to 

vote from home and greater flexibility in 

choosing when to vote 

Disadvantages 

• Voters, especially those needing assistance, 

may have a greater potential for 

experiencing inappropriate influence from 

other household members when voting 

• Some voters with disabilities may find that 

requirements in some states for using 

permanent absentee voting (for example, 

providing doctor’s certification) discourage 

use of this option 

• Some voters with disabilities may prefer that 

the traditional polling places used on 

Election Day be fully accessible 

• Voters would not have access to latebreaking information on candidates and 

ballot measures 

• Provide additional staff and other resources 

necessary to accommodate the expansion of 

absentee voting, such as for mailing, receiving, and 

counting additional absentee votes 

• Develop procedures to maintain an accurate list of 

absentee voters 

• Balance providing voter convenience with fraud 

control 

Universal vote-by-mail: Mail 

ballots to voters who can return 

them by mail or deposit them at 

designated locations, with 

exceptions for those who are 

unable to vote without assistance 

Advantages 

• Voters are allowed to vote from their own 

home and within an expanded time frame 

• Voters are provided with uniform statewide 

voting access that provides equal treatment 

for all 

Disadvantages 

• Voters who prefer using a polling place may 

resist this method 

• Voters may have increased potential for 

inappropriate influence from other 

household members 

• Assure uniformity of statewide system, if 

implemented at the state level 

• Demonstrate reliability and security 

• Provide staff and other resources necessary for 

maintaining an accurate list of voters and 

addresses as well as mailing, receiving, verifying, 

and counting votes 

• Rely upon postal service to provide timely delivery 

of ballots 

• Provide another option for those who cannot use 

this method without assistance, such as sending 

staff to the residence of a voter with a disability 

Page 88 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix VI

Issues and Challenges Related to Voting

Accommodations and Alternatives

(Continued From Previous Page) 

Accommodations and Advantages and disadvantages


alternatives for voters Challenges for election officials


Internet voting: Allow voters to 

cast a ballot using the Internet; 

implementation may be in several 

phases, starting at polling places 

and potentially expanding to 

kiosks and other remote 

locations, such a voter’s home or 

office 

Advantages 

• Voters are provided greater flexibility to vote 

when they want and from convenient 

locations, if remote Internet voting is allowed 

• Blind individuals may be able to vote 

independently with special equipment and a 

web site that has been designed to provide 

universal access, per federal standards 

Disadvantages 

• Voters who are accustomed to traditional 

methods may resist this method 

• Voters who lack a convenient connection to 

the Internet may not have equal access to 

voting 

• Blind voters may need special equipment to 

allow them to use the Internet 

• Take steps (for example, pilot testing and 

certification) to ensure that the system is secure, 

reliable, cost effective, and accessible to disabled 

voters and that it allows voters to cast a secret 

ballot 

• Develop operational procedures and train workers 

to ensure sufficient technical support to maintain 

equipment and assist voters 

• Educate public on security features and use of 

system 

• Wait for technological improvements to ensure voter 

identity, secrecy, and integrity of the votes, if remote 

access is allowed 

• Protect equipment from vandalism or tampering, if 

public kiosks are used 

• Ensure widespread availability of Internet access, if 

remote access is allowed 

Source: GAO analysis of comments by officials of organizations that represent the interests of election 

officials and people with disabilities. 

Page 89 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix VII 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements


GAO Contacts	 Barbara D. Bovbjerg, (202) 512-7215 

Carol Dawn Petersen, (202) 512-7215 

Staff Acknowledgements	 In addition to those named above, the following individuals made 

significant contributions to this report: Michele Grgich, Alicia Puente 

Cackley, Julie DeVault, Gretta L. Goodwin, Stephen S. Langley III, Robert 

Tomco, Margaret Boeckmann, James Wright, Joel Grossman, and Patrick 

DiBattista, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues; Joan Vogel, 

Grant Mallie, and Art Kendall, Applied Research and Methods; Dayna K. 

Shah and Behn Miller, General Counsel. Numerous staff from headquarters 

and field offices who collected data for this report also made important 

contributions. 

(207099) Page 90 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Ordering Information	 The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to 

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are 

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and 

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone 

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain 

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet,

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at: 

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud, Contact one:

Waste, or Abuse in • Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov Federal Programs • 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

Presorted Sta

ndard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for PrivateUse $300

Address CorrectionRequested